Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL,

Ordered, That, in the case of the Dover Harbour Bill, Standing Orders 82, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

NEW WRIT,

For the Borough of Leeds (Central Division), in the room of ARTHUR WELLESLEY WILLEY, Esquire, deceased.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — LAUSANNE CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the result of the negotiations for peace with Turkey at Lausanne; and when is it expected that the evacuation of Constantinople and the Dardanelles by the Allied troops will commence?

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any official statement as to the exact outcome of the peace negotiations with Turkey at Lausanne, and more especially the points which have been purposely left over for subsequent settlement; and whether the general outlines of the settlement arrived at are approved by all the Balkan Powers?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether he has official information as to the result of the peace negotiations with Turkey, and when the Treaty is to be signed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald MacNeill): The present position at Lausanne is that the semi-official meetings which have taken place since Saturday have enabled an agreement to be reached in principle between the delegations of the inviting Powers and the Turkish delegation. The experts have been requested to reduce to a final form the drafts prepared on certain subjects. But until these drafts have been agreed upon by the Conference, and all outstanding questions are thus formally and definitely disposed of, including negotiations with certain of the Balkan States which are not yet concluded, I cannot state either when the Treaty will be signed, or when the evacuation of Turkish territory by the Allied troops will begin.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact, as stated in the Press, that when Angora has ratified this Treaty, or consented to it, the evacuation will commence within six weeks after that?

Mr. McNEILL: I think the actual terms have been agreed upon, but I cannot make a definite statement.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that, following the precedent of other Treaties, this Treaty will be brought before this House before its ratification?

Mr. McNEILL: That is a question which should be put to the Prime Minister, not to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO (BRITISH CAPITAL).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that before the War the Montenegrin Government obtained a 5 per cent. loan mainly provided by British capital, on which loan the interest was regularly paid by the Montenegrin Government; whether the Jugo-Slav Government since the forcible annexation of Montenegro has assumed any responsibility in regard to this loan and paid any interest; and whether, see-
ing that the Serbian Government has received certain reparation sums from the Central States on behalf of Montenegro and in view of the fact that the loan was obtained from British capital, he will cause representations to be made to Belgrade on this subject, in order to produce a satisfactory arrangement to be arrived at in regard thereto?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative In regard to the second and third parts, His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade has been in communication with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government in regard to the assumption of responsibility for the Montenegrin loan since the incorporation of Montenegro in the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom, and supplementary budget estimates were recently passed in which provision was made for the service of the current coupons. The question of arrears of interest is still under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLAVE TRADE.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at the council meeting of the League of Nations held this month the statement was made that the information upon slavery which had been collected by the council from States members of the League was not adequate to provide the basis of a sufficiently complete report; and whether, seeing that it is common knowledge that His Majesty's Government possesses considerable information upon slavery in certain African territories, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to assist the League in the task of attempting to secure the abolition of slavery in all its forms by placing at the disposal of the council portions of the information it possesses upon conditions which will ensure that the efforts of the League to secure the abolition of slavery will not be rendered abortive?

Mr. McNEILL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 25th of June.

Mr. ROBERTS: 6.
also asked the Under-Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there
are in this country at the present time several ex-British Consuls and Vice-Consuls who have occupied official positions in Abyssinia: and whether, in pursuance of our national obligations to do all in our power to put an end to slavery in Africa in all its forms, His Majesty's Government is prepared to suggest to the League of Nations the advisability of inviting these gentlemen to give evidence before the Commission which will consider the question of slavery in September next?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government have always fulfilled, and will continue to fulfil, their obligations in relation to slavery and the slave trade, but these do not include any obligation to interfere in the internal affairs of Abyssinia, which is an independent and friendly State; nor are His Majesty's Government prepared to make suggestions to the League of Nations of the nature indicated in the question.

Mr. ROBERTS: Is it not the case that we did undertake to use our influence as well as our authority in such cases?

Mr. McNEILL: I think that if the hon. Member will go into the documents in which our obligations are embodied, he will find that my answer is strictly accurate.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not possible for the Foreign Office to take some action through the League of Nations?

Mr. McNEILL: That, if I may say so, would be the same question in other words.

Captain BERKELEY: Is it not the case that application has been made for this information, and, if that be so, will not the hon. Gentleman consider affording it in as ample a manner as possible?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the answer I have just given to the question on the Paper, he will see that that question has been already answered more than once.

Mr. ROBERTS: Have we not constantly, on previous occasions, used our influence with sovereign nations?

Mr. McNEILL: That may or may not be the case, but it does not alter the facts of the present case.

Mr. ROBERTS: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that in Consular Reports and the Report of the Maji Commission referring to slavery to Abyssinia there is evidence that many of the slaves in the slave gangs brought into Abyssinia were raided from British territory forming part of the Colony of Kenya, he will say what steps, if any, have been taken by His Majesty's Government to secure the liberty and restoration of these slaves to British territory?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that I am unable to answer this inquiry unless the hon. Member can refer me to the specific reports and passages in reports which he has in mind.

Mr. ROBERTS: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Report of he Maji Commission, which undoubtedly does contain statements as to slaves being raided from British territory into Abyssinia?

Mr. McNEILL: Perhaps the hon. Member will, as I have said in my answer, refer me to the passages in the Reports.

Mr. ROBERTS: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the passage which has been quoted from that Report in the pages of the "Times."

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY LAW).

Sir EDWIN STOCKTON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that under American law English women married to Americans are regarded as aliens, he can state whether any other countries adopt a similar policy with respect to alien women marrying their nationals; and whether he will see if there is any possibility of arriving at an agreement internationally?

Mr. McNEILL: The law of nearly all foreign countries is in accordance with English law in holding that the wife takes the nationality of her husband. It would not be possible, within the limits of a reply to a question, to state the actual provisions of the law of each country, but information on the subject has been communicated by the Foreign Office to the Joint Committee on the nationality of married women, the substance of which
I shall be happy to supply to the hon. Member should he desire it. For reasons given to the Committee, I do not think there is any present possibility of arriving at an international agreement on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR REGULATIONS, UNITED STATES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the American Government has made concessions in the direction of carrying wine in British ships operating between Eastern American ports and the Mediterranean?

Mr. McNEILL: I understand that Regulations either have been, or will shortly be, promulgated providing that liquor allowances to foreign ships in United States waters will be based on the requirements of the laws of the country in whose trade vessels are operating, as well as on the laws of the country of registry.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Colonel GRETTON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the lands, buildings, and fortifications, formerly the property of the British Government, at Berehaven, Haulbowline, and Lough Swilly have been transferred as the property of the Irish Free State; and will he say what working arrangements have been made for the use of these lands, buildings, and fortifications for the purposes of the Royal Navy?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): As far as the Admiralty is concerned, the reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except for Berehaven, which is expressly reserved under the Treaty. I understand that the Army fortifications at Haulbowline and Lough Swilly are similarly reserved. Under Section 7 (b) of the Treaty, the Government of the Irish Free State will afford, in time of war, such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for purposes of defence.

Colonel GRETTON: Are there any care-taking parties or any stores in occupation on the part of the Navy in any of these places now?

Mr. AMERY: I should require notice of that question.

WELFARE COMMITTEES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision promulgated in Admiralty Fleet Order, No. 1,703, Item No. 1, regarding the institution of port welfare committees at the three naval ports, he will consider the committees which at present meet monthly under the name of the lower deck joint committee, which consist of representatives of lower deck benefit societies and kindred institutions as coming within the meaning set out in Admiralty Fleet Order, No. 3,657/20; and whether he will issue instructions accordingly.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): If the request in the hon. and gallant Member's question be that port welfare committees under another name should be recognised by the Admiralty, the Admiralty can only reiterate their decision of the recent Fleet Order of the 26th June, quoted in the preamble of the question, that as a matter of policy this course is not desirable.

SINGAPORE BASE (GIFT BY STRAITS SETTLEMENTS).

Mr. PENNY: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government of the Straits Settlements have made any offer to contribute towards the cost of the proposed naval base at Singapore by purchasing, at the expense of the Colony, the land required for the site or otherwise?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. I am much pleased to be able to inform the House that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State has received a message from the Governor of the Straits Settlements that, with the concurrence of the unofficial members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of the Colony, the site selected both for the naval base and for the aerodrome will be acquired by the Govern-
ment of the Colony and handed over as a free gift. A message has been sent to Sir Laurence Guillemard expressing His Majesty's Government's warm appreciation of this generous and patriotic decision on the part of the Colony.

Mr. PENNY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the extent of the site that has been granted?

Mr. AMERY: I should have to have notice of that question.

Captain BERKELEY: What proportion will the value of this site bear in relation to the total cost of the dock?

Mr. AMERY: At any rate, it is a very generous and welcome gift.

Sir GEORGE BERRY: Do not look a gift horse in the mouth!

Captain BERKELEY: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put it down.

COURTS-MARTIAL.

Mr. HOHLER: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the publication of the Returns of the number of courts-martial held and summary punishments inflicted on seamen in the Royal Navy has been in abeyance since the commencement of the late War; and will the Admiralty now resume their publication and have the Returns brought up to date?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Publication will be resumed beginning with the year 1922. It is not possible to compile the Return for the years 1914–21.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.

Mr. PRIVETT: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the naval pensions shown with Greenwich Hospital pensions, on page 2369 of the Navy List, are paid from Greenwich Hospital funds; and, if not, will he state from what source the money for these pensions is obtained?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The naval pensions referred to are not paid from Greenwich Hospital funds, but from Navy Vote. 13, Sub-head F.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN WAR VESSELS (CONSTRUCTION IN BRITISH YARDS).

Mr. HANCOCK: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any war vessels of any kind are now being constructed for foreign Powers in private dockyards in Great Britain; if so, how many; and is there any International Treaty that prohibits such construction?

Mr. AMERY: There is no International Treaty prohibiting the construction of war vessels, though the Washington Treaty prescribes certain limits as to tonnage and armament. With the exception of a coastal motor boat being built for Siam, no war vessel is under construction for any foreign Government at the present moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF EXPENDITURE.

Mr. HAYDAY: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour what sums have been expended in relief of unemployment in Great Britain, including unemployment insurance, provision of work, as well as other forms of relief, by the central Government and by local authorities, respectively, during the period 1st January, 1919, to 30th June, 1923, and during the last financial year?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 10th July, to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Shakespeare), in which all the information available is set out.

BENEFIT, ULVERSTON-IN-FURNESS.

Mr. HAYDAY: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. R. Drinkwater, of Ulverston-in Furness, has been refused unemployment benefit, although he has 32 stamps on his card, and that the reason given by the Exchange officials is that the man in question is only a part-time worker; whether he will state by what authority a person is debarred from benefit after having been forced to pay contributions; whether he has further considered the hardships suffered by part-time workers in connection with unemployment insurance; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am having inquiry made in the matter, and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

Mr. HAYDAY: With regard to the latter part of the question, has the right hon. Gentleman gone further into the question of part-time workers?

Sir M. BARLOW: We considered the matter somewhat fully at the time where the Insurance Act was passed, as my hon. Friend knows. I am not able to carry the matter any further.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give consideration to it, in view of the growth of the number of these cases that are attributable to their being part-time workers?

Sir M. BARLOW: I do not quite accept the suggestion as to the growth of the number of cases. The number of part-time workers given in the figures every week has, within limits, remained very stable. The problem is a difficult one, as my hon. Friend knows, but I do not think it has increased in difficulty. I do not think I can undertake to proceed any further at present.

Mr. HAYDAY: The right hon. Gentleman will realize that while there is some stamp credit there is some case of hardship. It is not as if it was uncovenanted.

Sir M. BARLOW: I will keep that in mind.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in a number of cases men not engaged in a trade dispute, who have been stopped working under exactly similar conditions, have received different treatment as regards the payment of unemployed benefit, members of the same gang of workers who were employed on the same job in some cases being refused benefit, and in other cases being granted it; and, in view of the feeling of resentment caused by this difference of treatment, whether he will do all in his power to expedite the Report of the Committee which is considering the amendment of the Unemployed Insurance Acts, whereby the innocent victims of a trade dispute may not be deprived of the unemployed benefit for which they have contributed?

Sir M. BARLOW: If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I shall be glad
to make inquiry into any cases where it is suggested that the decisions on benefit are different although the circumstances are precisely similar. I am informed that the Committee which is considering the working of the Trade Disputes Clause have fully in mind the desirability of reporting as soon as possible.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the similarity of the replies in the past few months, is it possible to vary the nature of the replies in the early future?

Sir M. BARLOW: The hon. Member is aware I am not permitted.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour how many appeals arising from the withholding of unemployment benefit, on the ground that unemployment is due to the present boilermakers' dispute, have been submitted to the court of referees and the umpire; and how many of these appeals have been allowed?

Sir M. BARLOW: About 6,000 cases arising out of the boilermakers' dispute have so far been the subject of appeal to courts of referees. In about 250 cases the courts have recommended that benefit should be allowed, and in the remainder that benefit should be disallowed. About 355 cases have up to the present been referred to the umpire, who has decided in 84 cases that benefit should be allowed, while 271 cases are still under consideration by him. Some of their appeals were "test cases," so that the number of individual workpeople whose claims were in effect covered by the decisions was larger than the totals stated.

Mr. McENTEE: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the large number of men in the shipbuilding industry who are now unemployed as a consequence of the dispute between the shipbuilders and the boilermakers and who are not receiving any unemployed benefit, although they are in no way responsible for their present condition of unemployment; whether, in view of the result of the present law in the present and in similar disputes whereby men are denied the benefit that they have been compelled to pay for, he will introduce legislation at an early date to enable workmen who are prevented from working by a trade dispute for which
they have no responsibility to receive benefit as ordinary unemployed workmen; and whether it is proposed to reimburse Poor Law guardians for relief given to workmen and their families who are unemployed in circumstances such as those named and also trade unions who pay unemployed benefit?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am aware that under the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, considerable numbers of unemployed workmen in the shipbuilding trades other than boilermakers have had their claims to unemployment benefit disallowed, in consequence of the boilermakers' dispute. No change could be made without legislation, and I cannot consider the question of legislation until I have received the Report of the Committee which, as the hon. Member is doubtless aware, is at present examining the possibility of amending Section 8 (1). This Committee, which contains representatives both of employers and employed persons, is actively engaged in examining the problem, and will hold another meeting on the 17th of this month. I have no funds out of which to reimburse Poor Law guardians or trade unions for relief or benefit paid to persons disqualified for Unemployment Insurance benefit in the circumstances mentioned.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement in the question that the boilermakers are in no way responsible for the present condition of unemployment?

Mr. McENTEE: Will the Noble Lord again read the question before he puts that supplementary?

Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that men who were receiving compensation benefit at the date of the boilermakers' stoppage and who have since ceased to receive compensation have been refused unemployment benefit on the ground that they are involved in the dispute; and that men who were receiving sick benefit at the beginning of the stoppage are not so penalised; and why unemployment benefit should be paid in the one case and not in the other?

Sir M. BARLOW: There is no discrimination merely on the ground that in one set of cases compensation is being
drawn and in other cases sickness benefit. In accordance with the terms of the Act, the question to be decided is whether the person claiming benefit has lost employment owing to the stoppage of work due to the trade dispute, and the answer to this question must depend on all the circumstances of the particular case.

JUVENILE CENTRES.

Mr. HARDIE: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that last week an additional 7,000 boys and girls in the Glasgow area left school and are now in search of employment; and whether he will take steps to provide employment or continuation education centres to prevent the evils that accompany enforced idleness?

Sir M. BARLOW: I understand that approximately 7,000 boys and girls left the elementary schools in the area of the Glasgow Education Authority at the end of the last summer term. Every effort will be made through the Emplyoment Exchanges to provide employment for those who require it. As regards the last part of the question, if, as I assume, the hon. Members refers to juvenile unemployment centres, I may say that I have written to the Glasgow Education Authority, among others, inviting them to open centres from 17th September, on the usual basis of a Government grant of 75 per cent. of the cost.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the Minister consider, not this hide-bound juvenile centre, but a system which is going to embrace adolescence, because that is, as he must know, the most important stage of the child's mind?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is not the most effective method of dealing with this large number of unemployed children to raise the school age?

Sir M. BARLOW: That is a question that ought to be addressed to the President of the Board of Education.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence?

Mr. G. WHITE: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour if the conditions under which the Government will pay 75 per cent. of the cost of juvenile unemployment centres from 17th September next
will be the same as those in force at present; and if a local authority continuing a centre already in operation can rely on receiving grant from that date?

Sir M. BARLOW: I anticipate that the conditions under which the Government grant of 75 per cent. of the cost of juvenile unemployment centres will be paid from the 17th September next to 17th April, 1924, will be substantially the same as those previously in force; they will be issued to authorities as soon as possible. Speaking generally, an authority which has had an approved scheme in the past may rely on receiving approval of an application for a scheme during next winter, provided that the scheme continues to comply with the conditions of the grant and that unemployment among juveniles in the area of the authority is still acute.

Mr. G. WHITE: Could it not be introduced now?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have already announced that the Government are not prepared to go beyond the arrangement already made, namely, to recognise the scheme in the middle of September.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman notify local authorities of the terms of the answer he has just given so that they may be acquainted with the position?

Sir M. BARLOW: The local authorities are watching the matter closely and the publicity given to this answer will probably be sufficient.

ALIENS.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that there is no systematic register of aliens in this country, he will state what steps are taken by the Employment Exchanges to ascertain whether aliens are quffalified to receive unemployment benefit?

Sir M. BARLOW: The only cases where the nationality of the applicant affects a claim to benefit are those where the applicant is a former enemy alien or an alien who has not been resident in this country since 1st January, 1911, and is applying for uncovenanted benefit. In such cases uncovenanted benefit is not payable. On the form of application for
uncovenanted benefit the applicant has to state whether or not he is a British subject and in all cases of doubt inquiry is made. I have no reason to suppose that there is any great difficulty in ascertaining the necessary facts in particular cases.

CASUAL EARNINGS.

Mr. AMMON: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a man in receipt of unemployment pay was stopped 3s. 10d. on account of his doing an evening's work for which he received 3s.; and whether steps can be taken to see that in such cases the persons should not suffer deductions in excess of the amount of money earned?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not aware of the particular case referred to, but Section 7 (2) (a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides expressly that, save in certain cases of subsidiary occupations, benefit cannot be paid for any day on which the claimant is following any occupation from which he derives any remuneration or profit.

Mr. AMMON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that if this continues it is going to put a premium on dishonesty?

Sir M. BARLOW: We have discussed this a great many times. The question of payment in respect of broken time is one of the most difficult problems in connection with the whole administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I have considered it over and over again, and at present, in view of the very recent consideration given to it in the last Unemployment Act, I cannot carry the matter any further.

Mr. AMMON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the effect of his answer will be that these men will not take work?

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to reply to the request for assistance based on the revised formula submitted to his Department some time ago by the representatives of necessitous areas; and, if not, whether, in view of the increasing cost of out-relief in certain districts, due to the continued growth of
local unemployment, he will be able to do so before the House adjourns for the autumn?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope to be in a position to announce the decision of the Government on this question some time before the Adjournment.

OUTER HEBRIDES.

Sir WILLIAM COTTS: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he will state, with reference to a Circular letter issued by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, dated 8th December, 1922, explaining that the land drainage scheme would not be applicable to the Outer Hebrides, but other proposals for the alleviation of distress and unemployment were under consideration, what the Government intends doing in view of the fact that, generally speaking, nothing so far had been done for the alleviation of distress and unemployment in these islands?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I cannot accept the suggestion that nothing so far has been done for the alleviation of distress and unemployment in the Outer Hebrides since December last. Advances to the amount of over £5,000 have been made through the Board of Agriculture from the Vote for Relief of Unemployment towards the cost of special road works in Lewis and Harris, of which two were mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member's unstarred question on the 26th March. The Unemployment Grants Committee have recently issued to local authorities generally two Circulars relating to works for the relief of unemployment in the winter of 1923–4, of which I am sending copies to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (REDUCTIONS).

Mr. BARNES: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will submit a Return to the House showing the total number of staff reductions in his Department from 1st January, 1923, to 30th June, 1923, and the percentage of ex-service men among them?

Sir M. BARLOW: The staff of the Ministry of Labour (exclusive of branch managers—who are paid by fees—and
industrial staff) totalled 16,535 on the 1st January, 1923, and 15,104 on the 1st July, a reduction of 1,431. Between the same dates the number of ex-service men employed in the Department has been reduced by 1,277, representing rather more than 89 per cent. of the total reduction. The number of ex-service men, however, still employed is 85.5 per cent. of the total male employés.

Mr. BARNES: Is there issued any Regulation governing the dismissal of these men with regard to obtaining other employment, taking seniority into consideration?

Sir M. BARLOW: There are already rules laid down by the various Government inquiries which have sat on the subject, and we carry out absolutely the recommendations of those Committees.

OFFICE OF WORKS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 78.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the total number of staff employed by his Department at the present time, together with

Temporary Staff in Government Departments.


—
Total.
Ex-Service Men.
Non-Service Men.
Women.


1st July, 1921
…
…
…
114,078
59,002
9,000
46,076


1st July, 1922
…
…
…
73,995
44,595
4,124
25,276


1st June, 1923
…
…
…
61,176
38,751
2,772
19,653

The figures for 1st July, 1923, are not yet available.

The above statement does not include temporary staff at regimental pay and record offices and unit and command offices under the War Office and Air Ministry, respectively, nor branch managers of the Labour Ministry who are paid by fees.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT, FRANCE.

Mr. COLLISON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in France on the 31st March for the years 1921, 1922, and 1923?

Sir M. BARLOW: So far as I am aware, there are no complete figures issued by the French Government or available from
the total annual amount paid in salaries and wages; and what were the comparative figures for the year 1913?

Sir J. BAIRD: The professional, administrative and clerical staff of the Department (i.e., excluding all industrial staff and other manual workers) number 1,786 at present, and cost in salary and wages approximately £580,000 per annum. In 1913 the number was 655 and the cost approximately £148,000.

TEMPORARY EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 99.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many temporary employés were serving in Government Departments on 1st July, 1921, 1922, and 1923, respectively; and, of the total number in each year, how many were ex-service men, non-service men, and women?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks): If the hon. Member agree, I propose to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

any other source showing the total number of unemployed persons in France. So far as out-of-work donation is concerned, the numbers of persons in receipt of donation were as follow:


March, 1921
81,526


March, 1922
7,915


March, 1923
2,571


But the French donation scheme is not so wide in its application as the provisions of our Unemployment Insurance Acts. In many branches of French industry there is an actual shortage of labour and, as I have informed the House, I have been able, with the co-operation of the French Government, to offer facilities to expert mechanics in this country to take up work in France.

Mr. COLLISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there is such a large decrease in 1922 and 1923?

Sir M. BARLOW: Because, I assume, the industrial conditions in France very rapidly improved.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the comparative absence of unemployment in France is due to the system of peasant proprietorship?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DEFECTIVE PROPERTY, BASFORD.

Mr. GEORGE SPENCER: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received a complaint against the sanitary inspector of the Basford Rural District Council failing to give certificates regarding defective property in the district; and will he inquire into such complaints with a view to a change of policy?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the case referred to, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. SPENCER: I will do so. I have done so to the Parliamentary Secretary before.

RENTS, TILBURY.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the Tilbury Urban District Council protesting against the decision of the Ministry to demand an increase of rent of State-assisted houses built for the working classes in the area of that local authority; and whether, in view of the poverty of the people living in those houses, he can see his way clear to reconsider his decision in this connection?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has not been found possible to reach an agreement regarding the rents of the houses built by the Tilbury Urban District Council under the Assisted Housing Scheme, and the question has, therefore, been referred for decision to the independent tribunal constituted under the Regulations.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 90 per cent. of the men living in Tilbury are casual workers in
receipt of not more than £2 a week in wages on the average, and how can they be expected to pay 17s. 10d. a week rent for their homes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No doubt that consideration will be taken into account by the tribunal when they come to consider the case.

Mr. McENTEE: Is it a fact that in cases like the one under discussion the Ministry refers them to the local authority, whereas the local authority has no power, except with the sanction of the Department, to make any reduction?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the local authority and the Minister do not agree, the case goes to an independent tribunal for final decision.

WOODEN HOUSES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the shortage of houses will still be acute at the end of this year, he proposes to continue in force the relaxed bye-laws of the Ministry of Health with regard to wooden houses beyond that date; and whether, in the meantime, local authorities are authorised in over-riding the bye-laws of the Ministry of Health?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Section 25 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, which enabled local authorities during a limited period to consent to the erection and use of buildings notwithstanding the provisions of building bye-laws, is at present in force till 31st December, 1923. Provision has been made in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, now before the House, to extend the operation of the Section for another year. As the hon. and gallant Member will see, a person aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of a local authority to give a consent under the Section has a right of appeal to the Minister of Health.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Many of the people affected have not the facilities for appealing. They do not know of it. Could not the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular to the local authorities reminding them of their duty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think there is any occasion to issue a circular to the local authorities reminding them of their duty. I have no doubt
the hon. and gallant Member will acquaint them with the fact that they have the right of appeal.

STATE SUBSIDY.

Mr. THOMSON: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that, at several housing conferences of representatives of local authorities held in the North of England last week, it was definitely stated that the Ministry of Health intended to make the payment of the subsidy from the State anthorised by the new Bill conditional upon the local authority contributing, out of its rates, towards the cost of the houses, both in the case of those provided by the local authority itself and in the case of those houses provided by the private builder, and in view of the uncertainty created in the minds of certain local authorities on this point, he will state whether the £6 grant by the State to the local authority will be made dependent upon the local authority contributing, out of the local rates, to the cost of such houses, whether provided by itself or by private builders, even in those cases where it can secure their provision without any further charge upon public funds than the £6 State subsidy provided in the Housing Bill?

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to withhold State subsidies from housing schemes put forward by private enterprise unless some liability is also imposed on local rates in respect of the same schemes; and whether, in such case, he will indicate the extent of the less per house which is expected to be borne by the rates when the full State contribution is paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no authority for the statement that the grant by the State of £6 per house for 20 years will be dependent on the local authority making a contribution out of the local rates. Where the local authority with my approval themselves erect houses complying with the Bill, the Government grant will in all cases be £6 for 20 years. Where the local authority grant assistance to private enterprise, the Government grant will be £6 for 20 years if the total assistance so granted is equal to or greater than the equivalent of this annual payment. If the total assistance granted to private enterprise is less than the equivalent of £6 for 20 years, the
Government contribution, in accordance with the latter part of the proviso to Clause 1 of the Bill, will be the equivalent of the total assistance actually granted.

Mr. THOMSON: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman's Department propose to notify the local authorities as to the conditions on which grants will be made so that there may be no misapprehension on the point?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have already notified them as to the provisions in the Bill, and I do not think it is advisable to notify them again until the Bill has passed through all its stages and become law.

LAND (PRICES).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 62.
asked the Minister of Health the average price per acre of land purchased for housing schemes and the average rateable value per acre of the same land prior to acquisition?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The average price per acre of land acquired under the State-assisted Schemes authorised by the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, was £177. I have no information as to the average rateable value per acre of the land prior to its acquisition.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider that 20 years' purchase based on the assessment rent would be a fair price to pay for land acquired for that purpose?

LOANS (SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT).

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that local authorities are able to obtain loans for housing purposes at 4¾ per cent. or less, and that the present rate at which they are authorised to intending borrowers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, namely, 5½ per cent., tends to limit the number of possible house purchasers under the Act, he will issue an order permitting loans to be granted at 5 per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The present general rate is 5½ per cent., but lower rates have been fixed in special cases, and I am prepared to consider any case where the local authority are of opinion that 5 per cent. is an adequate rate for their area.

HOUSES SANCTIONED.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the adoption of the Housing Bill, he will consider the desirability of issuing a weekly announcement of houses sanctioned under the Measure, specifying in each case the agency by which they are to be constructed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be glad to furnish the House from time to time with particulars of progress of the scheme and with figures of houses completed, but I do not think that it is necessary to issue weekly statements such as the hon. Member suggests.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether, with regard to the list of prices of materials issued by the Building Materials Prices Committee, he can state the quotations, respectively, for Fletton and stock bricks per 1,000; whether he is aware that since the issue of those figures prices have risen materially, notably in the cost of Fletton bricks, by as much as 9s. per 1,000, and that there is a serious shortage of these bricks in the South of England; and what steps he proposes to take, in view of the need for achieving success with his housing programme, to deal with the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of brick prices is engaging the attention of the Committee on Building Materials Prices, who will report further on this subject at an early date. The last published price for Fletton and best and second-hand stock bricks, delivered in London was £2 13s. 3d., and £4 2s. and £3 17s. per 1,000. From the published market rates it does not appear that any increase in the price of Fletton bricks, delivered to King's Cross, has been recorded for some considerable time. It is known that there is a great demand for Fletton bricks in the South of England, and that the manufacturers are making great efforts to meet it.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no stocks of Fletton bricks in the South of England, and that makers are holding up supplies so that they may charge very much increased prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that they are holding up supplies.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that within the next few days bricks are going up by 5s. per 1,000, though wages are going down by 3s. a week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the intimate knowledge of the intentions of manufacturers which appears to be possessed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. JONES: Your Department ought to know.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has not the output of bricks increased enormously during the last four months, and is not that a reason for asking manufacturers to decrease their prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe that it is a fact the output has increased very much, and no doubt that will be taken into account by the Committee.

WELL HALL ESTATE, WOOLWICH.

Sir K. WOOD: 77.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether there are any empty, houses on the Well Hall estate, near Woolwich; and whether they are being offered for sale or are they also available for letting?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): There are at the present time six empty houses on this estate. One of these has been sold, for two others offers have been received as a result of which sales will be effected shortly, and as regards the remaining three, which have only fallen vacant during the last three weeks, many offers have been received and are being considered by my Department. Such houses as become vacant are not being offered for letting, but are being sold, and it is found that there is a ready market for them.

Sir K. WOOD: Is there any truth in the allegation, made in the public Press, that these houses are being kept vacant by the action of the Office of Works, owing to the stipulation that they are to be sold and not to be let?

Sir J. BAIRD: I did not notice what appeared in the public Press, but the facts are as I have stated.

Mr. J. JONES: Are the Government showing a good example to private owners when they insist on the houses being sold instead of being let?

Sir J. BAIRD: The Government have got to do the best they can with the taxpayers' property. Whether a man buys a house or rents it the result is the same so far as accommodating people with houses is concerned.

Mr. McENTEE: If the houses are held for sale they cannot be occupied, so that that answer cannot be correct.

Sir J. BAIRD: The answer is correct. The houses are only held for a reasonable time to see whether there are any buyers, and in every case there is a large number of buyers. If it should appear that there are no buyers, obviously we should let them.

Mr. THOMAS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that if the Government are introducing a Bill to deal with the shortage of houses, the Government ought themselves to set an example and not keep the houses vacant looking from buyers as distinct from tenants?

Sir J. BAIRD: That is as broad as it is long. Houses can only be occupied by a certain number of people, whether they are sold or let. We prefer to sell houses rather than to let them.

SURVEYOR AND SANITARY INSPECTOR, STAPLEFORD.

Mr. HAYDAY: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he approved of the advertisement of the Stapleford Rural District Council for a highway surveyor and sanitary inspector at a salary of £175 per annum inclusive, £50 as highway surveyor and £125 as sanitary inspector; whether he has intimated to the rural district council that in his view a whole-time official should be appointed; if so, whether £125 per annum is held to be an adequate salary for the responsible duties of a sanitary inspector; whether the officer appointed was a member of the Stapleford Rural District Council, and if he holds the qualifications prescribed by the Sanitary Officers Order, 1922; and whether he has sanctioned the appointment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The advertisement was issued without my knowledge or approval. On learning of it I expressed the view that the two offices combined
would at least require the services of one whole-time officer. The Council, however, appointed an unqualified, part-time officer who was a member of the council, and I therefore have declined to approve the appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROOK FEVER HOSPITAL, SHOOTERS HILL.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Brook Fever Hospital at Shooters Hill is about, to be permanently closed; and whether he can state the reason for this course?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand that, owing to the reduction in the number of cases of infectious disease in London, further admissions to this hospital are being stopped for the present, but the hospital will be re-opened as soon as it is needed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOSS OF S.S. "TREVESSA."

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether there is any fund from which some public recognition of the gallantry displayed by the officers and men of the s.s. "Trevessa" could be made?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. I would refer to the answer given yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. and gallant Member for Battersea South

Captain BENN: Is there any way in which publicly, officially, some recognition could be given to these gallant men?

Viscount WOLMER: The Board of Trade have power to give recognition, but my right hon. Friend announced yesterday that he thought it advisable to await the Report of the inquiry which he has instituted into the whole question before the Board of Trade takes action.

Captain BENN: Assuming that the facts are as we suppose they are, will the Board of Trade take some action in the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — NO-MORE-WAR DEMONSTRATIONS.

Mr. PONSONBY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether any instructions have been given to prohibit the holding of no-more-war demonstrations at the end of this month?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of what he has in mind I shall be obliged. No instructions have been issued by my Department.

Mr. PONSONBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister whether he would accept an invitation to address one of these demonstrations?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON ORE MINES, WEST CUMBERLAND.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that practically the whole of the iron ore mines in West Cumberland have been closed down, and that most of the blast furnaces in the same area have been damped down; and whether, seeing that this serious slump in the iron and steel trade is to a large extent attributable to the present position of affairs in the Ruhr Valley and having regard to the fact that this present slump comes after a previous one lasting over two years, any immediate action can be taken by the Government to safeguard the interests of our staple industries?

Viscount WOLMER: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that a number of iron ore mines have been recently closed down, and several blast furnaces damped down, on the North West Coast. The situation in the Ruhr is receiving constant attention by the Government, and I understand that the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement on the subject to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-POX (VACCINATION ACTS).

Sir G. BERRY: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the manner in which the Vaccination Acts are being administered; and, if not, if he is prepared, in view of the present serious epidemic of small-pox, to take steps to enforce rigid compliance with them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The responsibility for the administration of the Vaccination Acts rests with the Boards of Guardians and their vaccination officers. I am not satisfied that the Acts are being proporly administered in all districts, and am considering what steps can be taken to secure improvement in this respect.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 67.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the transference of the administration of vaccination to the general sanitary administration under the sanitary authorities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This question has been under consideration, but I could not undertake to introduce the necessary legislation during the present Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK CHEESE, CREAM, AND MILK-POWDER.

Mr. HURD: 58.
asked the Minister of Health the result of his consultation with the Minister of Agriculture with a view to the adoption of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee for the imposition of a legal minimum standard of quality applicable to whole-milk cheese, cream, and milk powder?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that my right hon. Friend is examining the situation with a view to determining whether it is practicable to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in regard to whole-milk cheese and cream. As regards milk powder, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 4th instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — LUNACY ACT (FLORENCE HALL).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Florence Hall, detained ostensibly under Section 24 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, in Guildford infirmary, is at present well enough to be employed in the work of that institution; and, having regard to the fact that her sister and brother-in-law have on more than one occasion applied for her discharge and are able and willing to give her every
attention and a comfortable home, he will take steps to secure her transference to their care?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that this patient's mental condition and habits are such as to necessitate constant supervision, and that she is unfit for discharge from institutional care.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made into the case, as I am informed that the facts are as I have stated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the hon. Member put questions to me about this case before. I have had inquiries made, and the result is as I have stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL FARM, LEICESTER.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information relating to the management of the Leicester municipal farm; whether he is aware of the serious financial loss which will have to be borne by the local ratepayers; and whether, in view of the grave charges of neglect and lack of adequate control made against the Farms Committee of the Leicester City Council and the bailiff of the farm, he will immediately appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole administration of the farm and locate those responsible?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no special information on this matter and no power to take the action suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, as the matter is one which is entirely within the control of the town council. I will, however, send a copy of the hon. and gallant Member's question to the local authority and ask for their observations.

Captain EVANS: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. LEACH: 74.
asked the Attorney-General if he will give the number of cases in which costs on the County Court scale only were allowed on judgments signed in the High Court during the year 1922?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am informed that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. LEACH: 75.
asked the Attorney-General if he will have included in the Annual Return, Judicial Statistics, High Court of Justice, Proceedings in District Registries, during the year 1923, columns showing, respectively, the number of cases entered which could have been entered in the County Court and the number of cases where, on judgment being signed, costs on the County Court scale were allowed?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The question as to what should be included in the Annual Return of Judicial Statistics has recently formed the subject of a careful inquiry by an expert Committee, who did not recommend that the statistics should afford the information asked for by the hon. Member. The information would be most costly and laborious to collect, and if it were, as the hon. Member suggests, restricted to the case of proceedings in district registries, it would be incomplete and misleading.

Mr. LEACH: 76.
asked the Attorney-General whether the provisions of the County Courts Act, 1919, 9 and 10 Geo. V, c. 73, s. 11, are having the effect of causing cases to be entered in the County Court instead of the High Court?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There has been, since the passing of the Act of 1919, a very large increase in the number of cases for larger amounts commenced in the County Court. This increase is due to many causes and it is impossible to say how much is due to the passing of the Ad of 1919.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (WAR CEMETERIES).

Mr. SNOWDEN: 80.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will explain why, after four years, only four war cemeteries in Palestine out of 34 have been constructionally completed and only about 1,300 headstones erected out of some 12,000; and whether it is possible to have the work accelerated.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): Work in Palestine has been delayed owing to the necessity for consultation
between Dominion representatives and their Governments on certain proposals for joint commemoration; and also owing to difficulties in settling the designs most suitable to local circumstances. Although there are altogether 34 cemeteries in Syria and Palestine recorded as containing British war graves, some 16 of these contain less than 20 graves each.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS COMMITTEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. BARNES: 81.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a circular has been issued by the chief area officer for West Ham notifying that, in future, all claims for travelling expenses or subsistence allowance in connection with out-patients' treatment must be lodged in his office monthly or on completion of the hospital card, whichever is the earlier, that no payments in respect of travelling or subsistence allowances will be made on the 4th of July, but as from that date payment in respect of those claims will be made the following week; for example, claims for fares incurred up to Wednesday, the 4th of July, will, after scrutiny, be paid on Wednesday, the 11th of July, and the next claim should be lodged on the first Wednesday in August or when the hospital card has nine attendances marked thereon; whether he is aware that many of the men affected have to travel long distances, frequently at considerable expense, for hospital treatment; whether the circular is issued with his authority and whether it is national or local in character; and if he will consider the advisability of withdrawing it and thus obviate this financial hardship on the men concerned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Cramp): The procedure referred to was unauthorised and has now been cancelled. My right hon. Friend is obliged to the hon. Member for calling attention to the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTGUARD SERVICE.

Viscount CURZON: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, since the transfer of the
coastguard service to the Board of Trade, 201 station officers are employed at £2 19s. per week and 137 at £2 8s. 8d. per week; what is the reason for the difference; and whether he can state how many men in charge of stations draw station officers' pay, and how many do not?

Viscount WOLMER: 180 Board of Trade coastguard stations are under the charge of station officers, with pay commencing at £2 19s. 5d. a week; and 129 are under senior coastguards, with pay commencing at £2 8s. 8d. a week. The work at the latter stations is not of sufficient importance to justify the appointment of station officers.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFE-SAVING AT SEA.

Sir E. STOCKTON: 85.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department has taken, or proposes to take, on the recommendations of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee regarding the rules for saving life at sea?

Viscount WOLMER: The report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee on life-saving appliances has been accepted in principle by the Board of Trade. Draft amended rules are now being prepared by the Department, and will be placed before the Committee as soon as they are ready. After the rules are made, and before they come into operation, they will be laid before Parliament, in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Viscount CURZON: Does the Noble Lord expect that there will be great delay in placing these rules before the Committee?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT (FATAL ACCIDENTS).

Mr. TILLETT: 90.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what proportion of airmen are burnt to death in aeroplane accidents as against violent death by defective engines, steering, or frame construction; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure an automatic detachment of petrol tanks and protection from fire in any case of enforced landing?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. Hoare): The information asked for in the first part of the question is not readily available in complete detail. I can, however, give to the hon. Member the following figures relating to fatal accidents to aircraft in the British Islands occurring between 1st July, 1920, and 30th June, 1923. The total number of fatal accidents was 57. The number of accidents in which death was found to be due to burning was two. The number of accidents in which fire occurred on impact is 13. As regards the latter part of the question, the Air Ministry, in conjunction with the Aeronautical Research Committee, have for some time past been giving very close attention to the investigation of various methods of preventing fire on impact. It is not at present possible to say in what direction the final solution of this extremely difficult problem may be found, but steady progress is being made, and the question of the use of detachable tanks and their location in aircraft has already been the subject of careful experiment. I shall be very glad to receive any information or suggestions which the hon. Member may have to make on this subject, and should he so desire, I shall be pleased to arrange an interview for him with the Department concerned at the Air Ministry.

Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible to do anything to encourage the use of heavy oil engines in aeroplanes, as opposed to petrol engines?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not think that that arises here. If the noble Lord will put down a question, I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INQUESTS, COUNTY OF LONDON.

Mr. LANSBURY: 94.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests were held in the County of London during the year ending 30th June, 1923; and in how many cases a verdict was returned that death was caused or accelerated by exposure or want or from starvation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no figures for the period mentioned, but for the year 1922 there were 5,015 inquests in the
County of London. Six cases were reported by the coroners under the collective heading of "deaths from disease aggravated by want, exposure, or self-neglect." Deaths from exposure or self-neglect are not always due to destitution, and the returns do not show which, if any, of these six cases are attributable to destitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVERTISEMENTS (NATIONAL FLAG).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 95.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will institute an inquiry into the whole question as to the desirability of the use of the national Flag for advertising purposes?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of any circumstances which would justify such an inquiry.

Sir W. de FRECE: Do the Government approve of the persistent use of the national flag for advertising purposes?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There have been several questions asked and they have been of an extremely cryptical character. I do not know just what I am to inquire about. If my hon. Friend will speak to me about it, I will look into the matter.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the deletion of the Union Jack from advertisements of Conservative meetings?

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is advertising.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN POLICE.

Viscountess ASTOR: 96.
asked the Home Secretary whether the system under which the 20 Metropolitan women police have worked during the current year has proved efficient; and whether he can give the record of work performed by these women from the 1st January to the 1st July, 1923?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no record is kept of the number of cases in which persons have been warned, admonished or assisted by the women police. The number of charges preferred by them in the period in question is two.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not a fact that the number is totally inadequate, and that until the women are put under a trained officer they cannot do what is expected of them?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot accede to that statement.

Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what official documents are available to Members, giving a record of the work of this useful force?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say offhand, but I shall be glad to supply all the information I can.

Mr. DUFFY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think, having regard to the number of women's cases dealt with in the City of London, that 20 women police are sufficient?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not, a question of sufficiency alone; it is also a question of the cost.

Viscountess ASTOR: 97.
asked the Home, Secretary what arrangements are made regarding lodging accommodation for women police who are single women; and whether there is any supervision of these women when they are off duty?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Unmarried police women are treated in the same way as male constables who are not located in Section House, that is to say, they are left to make their own arrangements as to lodging. They are not under supervision when off duty, but, like other members of the force, they are liable to be recalled to duty at any time if occasion should arise.

Viscount CURZON: Cannot something be done to extend the use of women police to Plymouth, as well as in London?

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

Mr. J. JONES: Cannot we have a woman Home Secretary?

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED VEHICLE DRIVERS, LONDON.

Mr. TILLETT: 98.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that when licensed vehicle drivers in the Metropolitan area are summoned by the magistrates for
minor offences they are additionally punished by the police authorities suspending for a period their driving licence, thus depriving them of the means of earning their livelihood; and will he take steps to prevent this dual punishment for one offence?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on the 14th ultimo.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANDS AND BUILDINGS (VALUATION).

Sir W. de FRECE: 100.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Inter-Departmental Committee announced officially on 22nd March to work out the details of the creation of a central organisation to deal with valuation and negotiations for sale, purchase, etc., of lands and buildings has actually been appointed; and, in that case, if he can state the names of its members?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Committee is constituted as follows:

Sir R. R. Scott, K.C.B., C.S.I. (Treasury), Chairman.
G. B. Canny, Esq., C.B. (Inland Revenue).
E. H. Coles, Esq., C.B. (Lands Directorate, War Office).
Sir A. Durrant, M.V.O., O.B.E., (Office of Works).
C. L. Fielder, Esq., C.B.E., F.S.I. (Admiralty).
Sir E. J. Harper, F.S.I. (Valuation Office, Inland Revenue).
With J. H. Woods, Esq. (Treasury) as Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN COLONIES (STATE TRADING).

Sir E. STOCKTON: 101.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent to which the various Crown Colonies indulge in State trading apart from railway construction; whether he will inform the House of the losses sustained by the attempt of the Singapore legislative council to carry on trading in sheep; and whether there are any local complaints that the concern is not run on business lines?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Apart from transport services, model stock farms, and experimental plantations, State trading is not carried on in Colonies to any great extent. The only definite instances which I have been able to find are the Government colliery in Nigeria, a saltern in Ceylon, a Government flax mill in St. Helena, and a few cotton ginneries in various West Indian islands. The importation of sheep was undertaken by the Government of the Straits Settlements in accordance with the recommendation of a local commission on profiteering, with a view to breaking a monopoly and lowering the price of mutton. I have not yet received any official information as to the loss incurred, nor have any recommendations been made on the subject, but my attention has been drawn to a Press article, stating the loss for 1921 and 1922 as 25,504 Straits dollars (under £3,000). The same article states that as a result of the Government operations the retail price of mutton was approximately halved.

Mr. McENTEE: In view of the fact that it is possible to take steps to break a monopoly in the Crown Colonies, cannot the Government adopt similar action to break monopolies in this country?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think it would be quite so easy to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN NATIVES (FLOGGING).

Mr. SNELL: 102.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, owing to the wide difference between the sentences imposd on white and coloured people, respectively, there exists dissatisfaction in certain African Colonies; whether he is aware that in Rhodesia another native has recently succumbed to flogging and that the white man concerned in this flogging was found guilty of culpable homicide by the white jury, but recommended by them to mercy; that for this offence he was fined £25; that in the same court a native employe of Cedric College was charged with entering the room of the matron at 11 p.m. whilst she was asleep, but did no harm to her; that the lady shot the man through the shoulder; and that the judge sentenced him to 15
cuts with a whip and three years' imprisonment with hard labour; and whether he will call for a Report upon these cases?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of the cases referred to, but I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOOTING BEC ASYLUM.

Mr. BRIANT: 52.
asked the Minister of Health if, in accordance with the wishes of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and in order to meet the feelings of the inmates and friends of inmates in Tooting Bec Asylum, he will take steps to see that persons whose only disability is general infirmity caused by age are no longer certified as lunatics?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in communication with the Metropolitan Asylums Board in regard to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL SERVICE).

Sir K. WOOD: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in accordance with the pledge given by his predecessor, he proposes to consult both the consultative council and representatives of the approved societies before any new terms as to remuneration and service are arranged with the medical men on the panel lists; whether he proposes to arrange such consultation before any offer as to remuneration is made; and when, and in what manner, he proposes any consultation shall take place?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 11th April. As regards the third part, the matter is now under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the representatives of the approved societies be assured that they will be consulted in this matter, inasmuch as they will have to contribute out of their funds to the remuneration of the medical men?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated, in answer to my hon. Friend, that I proposed to consult the representatives of the approved societies.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALMSHOUSES, BEDFORDSHIRE.

Mr. WELLS: 79.
asked the hon. Member for Tonbridge, as representing the Charity Commissioners, what steps have been taken to provide almshouses in Bedfordshire under the will of the late William George Lovell, who died in July, 1909?

Lieut. - Colonel SPENDER - CLAY (Charity Commissioner): I am to refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the hon. Member for Wood Green on the 8th of March last to a similar question. After that answer had been given, a difficulty arose owing to the refusal of the executors of Mr. Gulland, who was the last surviving trustee of Mrs. Lovell's will, either to accept the trusts of her will or to appoint new trustees. In view of this difficulty, the case was referred by the Commissioners to His Majesty's Attorney-General; and, at his request, Mr. Gulland's executors have now agreed to appoint trustees. As soon as such an appointment has been made, applications to the Court, in the matter of both charities, can be proceeded with.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-GERMAN MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when a further distribution will be made by the British Clearing Office upon the amount of awards of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in respect of British claims for compensation already decided by the tribunal under Article 297 of the Treaty of Versailles: and is he aware that six months have now elapsed since the last distribution was made?

Captain KING (for Viscount Wolmer): A second dividend of 2s. 6d. in the £ will be paid by the Clearing Office on the 31st of this month upon all awards of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in respect of compensation under Article 297 (e). I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of an announcement on the subject for his information.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes to take on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In accordance with the agreement arrived at between all parties last night it is proposed to put down the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Bill as the first Order to be followed by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Bill, on the definite understanding that if the first Order is not obtained by One o'clock, further discussion of that Measure should be adjourned, so as to allow of a full three hours' Debate on the Third Reading of the Rent Bill to be concluded by Four o'clock. I hope very much it will be possible to get the first-named Bill.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: May I ask a question about the business for to-day. How far is it intended to go with the Agricultural Rates Bill; and will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the principal Act which dealt with a much smaller amount of money and did not apply to Scotland, took 15 Parliamentary days?

Mr. J. JONES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him if he is prepared to give facilities on Friday so that the first Bill may, if necessary, be voted upon before One o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite understand the last question. If the hon. Member means do we propose to get the Bill through before we rise, the answer is "Yes." With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts), we hope to get, as was announced. I think, last week, the Report stage and Third Reading of the Rates Bill.

Mr. ROBERTS: Can we not have a longer time for this really important Measure? It only had four days' discussion in Standing Committee, where never more than 34 Members attended.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is quite true there is no restriction of time in the Standing Committee, and that really shows that the Bill meets with an amount of general approval. It is very important that this Bill should be got before the House adjourns, and, as my hon. Friend knows, time is getting on now.

Mr. THOMAS: Having regard to the fact that the only opposition to the first Order on Friday is likely to come from his side of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman make an effort to persuade his own supporters not to block the Bill?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman press upon his supporters—or some of his supporters, because only a few of them take this view—that they are wasting Government time by blocking this Bill?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not the case that a certain number of us who served on the Committee are very anxious to give our views, even though we may eventually support the Bill?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Agricultural Rates Bill and on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 144.

Division No. 284.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Doyle, N. Grattan
Lamb, J. Q.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ednam, Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Apsley, Lord
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lorden, John William


Astor, Viscountess
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lorimer, H. D.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lougher, L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. Bolton M.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Falcon, Captain Michael
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Barnston, Major Harry
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Berry, Sir George
Furness, G. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gardiner, James
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Murchison, C. K.


Blundell, F. N.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Nall, Major Joseph


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Brass, Captain W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Halstead, Major D.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bruford, R.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Paget, T. G.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pease, William Edwin


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Harrison, F. C.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Butcher, Sir John George
Harvey, Major S. E.
Penny, Frederick George


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Button, H. S.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peto, Basil E.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pielou, D. P.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Privett, F. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins John W. W.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Remnant, Sir James


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Rentoul, G. S.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt. A.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)


Cope, Major William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Shepperson, E. W.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Singleton, J. E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wise, Frederick


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Tubbs, S. W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Stanley, Lord
Turton, Edmund Russborough
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wallace, Captain E.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Waring, Major Walter



Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Wells, S. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richards, R.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hinds, John
Riley, Ben


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.


Attlee, C. R.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Irving, Dan
Rose, Frank H.


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Royce, William Stapleton


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Salter, Dr. A.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bonwick, A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Briant, Frank
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Simpson, J. Hope


Brotherton, J.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sinclair, Sir A.


Buckie, J.
Lansbury, George
Sitch, Charles H.


Burgess, S.
Lawson, John James
Smillie, Robert


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Snowden, Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Linfield, F. C.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lowth, T.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Collison, Levi
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
M'Entee, V. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Tillett, Benjamin


Duncan, C.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Middleton, G.
Warne, G. H.


Edmonds, G.
Millar, J. D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morel, E. D.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Mosley, Oswald
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Falconer, J.
Muir, John W.
Weir, L. M.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Foot, Isaac
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Whiteley, W.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hancock, John George
Phillipps, Vivian
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.


Question put, and agreed to.

RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on Consideration), to be printed. [Bill 193.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Sir Norman Rae.

Report to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Tees Valley Water Board Bill,

Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

London and North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],

Caledonian Insurance Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BILLS REPORTED.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridlington Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridport Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Brighton Extension) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Dover Harbour Bill,

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords],

Mid Kent Water Bill [Lords],

Southern Railway Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL RATES BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the first new Clause, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), and the third, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland)—["Definition of agricultural land"]—both of which deal with the question of allotments, they are not in order as they stand at this place. There is one later on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for West Woolwich—["Explanation and meaning of 'allotment'"]—which is in order, and I shall call that when we reach it.
With regard to the second new Clause, in the name of the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer)—["Rental value attributable to relief"]—he was good enough to submit his case for that Clause to me, and I gave it the most careful consideration. I was at first inclined to think that it was outside the scope of the Bill, as appeared to be the view also of the Chairman of the Standing Committee, but since then it has been brought to my notice that there is actually in the Schedule to the Bill a small provision which deals with the question of rent where rent if fixed by arbitration. Having regard to that, I have felt bound to rule in favour of the hon. Member. What I say with regard to his Clause applies also to the fourth new Clause on the Paper, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tiverton—["Instruction to arbitrator in fixing rents under s. 12 of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923"]. I would express my obligations to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) for drawing my attention to a point which, up to then, had escaped my attention.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rental value attributable to relief.)

In determining for the purposes of Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding, an arbiter shall not take into account any relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages effected by the Agricultural Rates (Scotland) Acts, 1896 to 1923."—[Mr. Falconer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. FALCONER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am much indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for your further consideration of this Clause. The point which you mentioned had escaped my notice, or was out of my mind, when I had the honour of the interview with you. The object of this Clause is a very simple one, but it raises in a sharp way the question as to whether, in certain circumstances, the occupier is to have the benefit of the relief given to him, and it is not to be regarded as belonging to any extent to the landlord. I understand—

Mr. SPEAKER: May I just say that I should perhaps have added, in giving my ruling, that it is confined to cases where rent is already fixed by arbitration, and not to wider cases? I should be obliged to rule out of order the fifth new Clause, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Tiverton ["Securing benefit of Act to occupier"]—which goes very much wider than does that of the hon. Member, so that discussion on this Clause will be kept within the terms of the Clause.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. FALCONER: I do not propose to discuss the general question outside of this Clause, and I have purposely narrowed my Clause so as to limit it to the cases where, under Statute, the amount of a rent is fixed, either by arbitration or by a Land Court. I am relieved from troubling the House at any considerable length on this question by the fact that I am given to understand that, in principle, the Government accept the Clause, and while they have views as to making it a better one, so far as draftsmanship and scope are concerned, these views, so far as indicated to me, entirely meet with my approval. I think the lines on which I understand the Government propose to deal with this matter are better and rather wider than those of my Clause. As the Government proposal could not be moved at this stage, I am bound to move my Clause, leaving it to them, between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place, to insert the Clause which they put forward, and leaving that, of course, to be dealt with by this House when it comes back. So far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to accept the Clause on
the lines proposed by the Government. I am not going to say anything more on this subject, except to remark that, apart from the merits of this particular case which will be dealt with under this Clause, it is important that the House should in this way lay down the principle that, wherever they properly can, they will protect the occupier from any attempt to give the benefit of the rates, which are intended for his benefit, to the owner on a change of tenancy.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to second the Motion.
I am glad the Government are prepared to extend the principle, which has already been laid down under Section 6 of the Act of 1906, to cover the cases to which my hon. Friend has referred, and that they propose to deal with this matter, under which the tenant will get full protection, and subsequently the advantage of any relief provided for him by this Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): As I explained to the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer), I am willing to accept this Amendment. It will probably be necessary to amend the Clause to a certain extent, in order to make it more effective for the purposes he has in view. I am not able to make that Amendment on the Report stage, as it is not on the Paper, but I shall have it moved in another place.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman read it?

Mr. THOMSON: Certainly. It is as follows:
The relief to occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages effected by the Agricultural Rates (Scotland) Acts, 1896 to 1923, shall not be taken into account by the landlord in fixing a fair rent for a holding under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, or by an arbiter in determining, for the purposes of Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is proposed payable in respect of a holding.

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for reading the Clause which the Government intend to insert. All the hon. Members who are associated with me in this matter will agree that the terms he suggests are an improvement on those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer).

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I say, in agreeing with my hon. Friends who have spoken, how pleased we on this side of the House are with the generous terms of the Government's new Clause. I am particularly satisfied with them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am also particularly pleased, that the Government have accepted this Amendment, but I should like to impress on the English Members what a tremendous advantage it is to the Scottish Members that they have separate Acts dealing with these matters. What an enormous advantage it would be to us in England if we could have a similar Clause passed, relating particularly to the small holdings in this country, which would prevent their rents being raised by this remission of rates. This is just an example of how Scotsmen, by standing out for their own conditions and legislation, have an advantage over others.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Instruction to arbitrator in fixing rents under s. 12 of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.)

Where under Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, a demand in writing for an arbitration as to rent to be Paid for the holding has been made and has been agreed to, the arbitrator, in determining what rent is properly payable in respect of the holding, shall not take into account any increase in the rental value which is due to the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Acland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will see, as I hope he will in a few moments, that it may be possible to do something for England corresponding to what has just been done for Scotland. The Clause I am moving is exactly parallel to that which has just been accepted for Scotland, and if the Minister of Agriculture is ready, not only to accept it but to improve on it, as his colleague has promised in regard to Scotland, those who have been concerned with myself in putting this down will be more than pleased. I am rather glad at the
turn the Debate on this matter is taking, because it has appeared to many persons that it has been beyond the wit of man to secure by legislation that the relief which we all desire in this Bill to obtain for the tenant shall not be transferred to the landlord. The case which my new Clause brings up is, of course, a limited one, but it is an important one. It is confined as drafted, and I understand that my wider attempt in another Amendment to go further will not be in order. This Amendment is drafted simply to deal with the case in which a landlord wishes to increase the rent to his tenant. If he simply asks for a higher rent, there is the liability, under the law as it now stands, that his tenant will say, "I shall treat this as notice to quit," on which he gets a year's rent for compensation, or possibly up to two years.
Under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, we have laid down a way in which a landlord shall be entitled, if he has a good case, to raise the rent, namely, that he can only do so if he proposes that the matter shall be referred to arbitration. If the tenant does not agree to that, he can give him notice to quit, without paying a year's rent. If the tenant does agree, he goes to an arbitrator, who is instructed, under Clause 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, not to take into account the improvements which the tenant has himself made. I suggest that in addition to the instructions not to take into account the improvements, the arbitrator shall have a parallel instruction also not to take into account the relief which the Bill will offer to him if it passes. This will have the effect of retaining the relief under this Act to a tenant which, I am sure, is what is really desired in all parts of the House. I was very glad to have been the humble means of persuading you, Mr. Speaker, that that would be in order, owing to the fact that the Government, in the last words of the Schedule, proposed to give the relief of this Bill to a certain class of crofter holdings in Scotland, and to secure it to them in the fixing of their rent by the Crofters' Commission, the argument being, of course—which the House will accept as fair—that if the Government propose that the Crofters' Commission should be instructed not to allow the landlord to transfer to himself the relief given by this Act, but that that shall go to the
tenant, it would not be quite fair to deprive private Members of the opportunity of making the same submission, when we have also in England a statutory provision for fair rents being fixed by a definite authority. I hope, therefore, as the cases in England and Scotland appear to be quite parallel, that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to accept the Motion. I would not dream of suggesting that it would be otherwise than in accordance with the general wishes on this Bill, namely, that the relief shall remain in the tenant, and not be transferred to the landlord; but I hope, if he is able to add to the Motion in any way by extending to it the case of the smallholder, or anything of that kind, he will indicate as much so that it may be put in in another place.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I am going to accept the Clause. The Government desire that the advantage of anything under this Bill should go to the tenant, and this makes it very clear, in particular cases, that it should be so. With regard to adding to the Clause, I was only aware about 10 minutes ago that it was in order, and I am afraid I have not had time to look into that. If there be any suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman would like to make to me before this Bill goes to another place. I will not go further than to say that I shall be quite ready to accept it.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: There should be no misunderstanding about the effect of this Clause. I think it is satisfactory, within the limited sphere and in the particular cases we are allowed to discuss. So far, so good. What the effect of this Clause will be on the ultimate working of this relief is a totally different matter. That, I understand, we are not to discuss at the present time, and therefore I cannot go into that point. All I wish to say is that this amount of protection, though I am glad to have it, is only confined to a very limited class of cases, and the Government must not ride off by saying that they have now established a dyke which will confine the relief in all cases to the occupier. In the ordinary working of economic laws it will ultimately go to the landlord, though temporarily, no doubt, it will go to the occupier. Of this particular Clause, and because there is now to be an additional statutory provision for it, we are glad,
but we must remember it only applies to a particular class of cases, and confines the subject to a particular statutory machinery. Therefore, it does not give anything like complete protection on this point.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Explanation and meaning of "allotment.")

For the purposes of removing doubts, it is hereby declared that—

(a) in the principal Act, as amended by this Act, the expression "allotment" includes an allotment garden within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922; and
(b) in the Act of 1896, as amended by this Act, the expression "allotment" includes an allotment garden within the meaning of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922.

Provided that nothing in this Section shall operate to extend the meaning of the expression "agricultural land" in the principal Act, as amended by this Act, so as to include a cottage garden not exceeding one-quarter of an acre, or to extend the meaning of the expression "agricultural land and heritages" in the Act of 1896 so as to include land occupied together with a house as a garden.—[Sir Kingsley Wood.]

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is moved for the express purpose of removing doubts. A question has been raised in connection with this Bill as to whether the word "allotments" in the original Act includes allotment gardens. Allotment gardens, speaking quite roughly, are those allotments one sees up and down the country, which are giving work, I think, to 1,300,000 allotment holders. Those allotment holders are naturally concerned as to whether these particular allotments will have the benefit of this Bill. I do not think there is much difficulty about the matter, but it is important that it should be cleared up and expressly put on the Statute Book I know the Minister of Agriculture has always been sympathetic to the allotment holders. He has assisted them very much indeed since he has been in office, and I hope he will see his way, simply for the express purpose of removing a doubt, to allow this Clause to be incorporated in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I beg to second the Motion. I would merely add that I trust that this will be made clear, not only from the point of view of allotment holders in England, but also of those across the Border.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite ready to accept this Clause. I think it makes no difference whatever to the present position of the law, but if there be any doubt on the subject this will fulfil a useful purpose and will remove that doubt.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: With reference to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, I think there is considerable doubt on some points. I think I should be able, by documentary evidence, to prove to the Solicitor-General for Scotland that there is a doubt existing in the minds of the legal advisers. It is, as a matter of fact, the case that allotment holders are now outside the scope of the relief given by the Act of 1896. I should further like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that the relief given—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—under Clause 1, the expression is used "agricultural land." A holding means any land used for agricultural or pastoral purposes, or as market gardens or allotments. If the Minister, as I understand, accepts the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Woolwich, I think that clears up any latent doubt that does exist as to whether or not allotment holders will receive any benefit.

Mr. ACLAND: I wish to express a word of gratitude to the Minister for accepting this Amendment. I find it difficult to discuss it without bringing in other issues. There was doubt as to whether the allotment holders under the original Act, were going to have relief in respect of their rates. Whether this Bill will give the allotment holder further relief is, perhaps, a matter that might be well left for the future. I am satisfied to leave the matter there.

Mr. S. PATTINSON: There is one point which has not been raised. A large number of allotments, which are held by the parish, are let by them directly, and the rates are included in the rent. I think it should be an instruction to the different councils that they should give the smallholders the relief that they
themselves will derive under the Act, otherwise the smallholder will not get the benefit.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts)—(Exclusion of building land)—is beyond the scope of the Bill, and is, therefore, out of order.

Mr. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. Might I urge that, in the first place, there is some precedent for this in the Debate on the principal Act in an Amendment which had a similar title and which was to exclude accommodation land? The matter was debated at considerable length in this House In fact the Amendment was accepted in principle by the Government of the day, and they subsequently ran away from it! What I attempt to do in this Clause is to suggest that if this Bill is intended to give relief to the occupiers of agricultural land, that there is a certain amount of land which cannot at present get relief under the principal Act and will not get relief under this Act, for it cannot really be called agricultural land at all. It is really building land. I wanted to exclude that and thereby diminish the charge.

Mr. SPEAKER: I ruled the hon. Member's new Clause out of order, on the ground that it proposes to instruct assessment committees in the matter of the valuation of the land.

Mr. ROBERTS: The reason for putting that in was that the Government, in Committee, objected to the Amendment on the ground that there was no machinery in it, and that some kind of machinery was required. Under those circumstances I put it in. But I shall be glad to move it without the suggested machinery.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that in Committee upstairs the hon. Member fell into a difficulty other than the present one.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely it must be possible, in a Bill proposing to deal with relief of the rates upon agricultural land, to define "agricultural land"? The definition sought to be obtained in this Amendment is a definition as to what
shall not constitute agricultural land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] Whether there is embodied in this particular new Clause or not any machinery for deciding how the valuation is to be effected, surely the question is whether certain land of a certain value is or is not to be considered agricultural land? That should be not only in the scope of the Bill, but a matter eminently desirable to debate?

Mr. C. ROBERTS: Before you give a final decision, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to another precedent, that in the Agricultural Credits Bill? The same language exactly is used. If it is possible to do it in one Bill, surely it is possible to do it in another? Surely if it was possible, and in order, to discuss it on the principal Act, it is in order to do it on an amending Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am dealing only with the Clause as presented to me. I shall be calling upon the hon. Member a little later in respect of an Amendment in Clause 1.
I do not select the first two Amendments on the Bill dealing with acreage.

CLAUSE 1.—(Further exemption of agricultural land in England from rates.)

(1) During the continuance of this Act, Section one of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), which provides that an occupier of agricultural land in England shall, in the case of every rate to which that Act applies, be liable to pay one half only of the rate in the pound payable in respect of buildings and other hereditaments, shall have effect as if for the references in that Section to "one half" there were substituted references to "one quarter":

Provided that, notwithstanding any provision contained in any other enactment for assessing agricultural land to any rate at less than the rateable value thereof or otherwise giving relief in respect of any rate to occupiers of agricultural land, an occupier of agricultural land shall not, as compared with an occupier of buildings or other hereditaments, pay any rate in a less proportion than one-quarter.

(2) Where under any local Act passed, or any Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament before the end of the present Session of Parliament, a rate to which the principal Act applied has become consolidated with a rate to which that Act did not apply. Section one of that Act as amended by this Section shall apply to the consolidated rate notwithstanding any provision contained in that Act or Order with respect to the proportion in which occupiers of agricultural land are to be liable to be assessed to or to pay that rate.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "effect" ["shall have effect as if"], to insert the words
in the case of every agricultural holding of the acreage of which more than half is arable.
This Amendment raises the main charge against the Bill made on the Second Reading, namely, that it is unequal in its incidence. If it has to carry out the avowed purpose of helping those in need of help, the particular method which I suggest may not be an unsatisfactory method. The Minister knows much better than any of us what would be the way to carry out the avowed object of the Bill. We tried to offer suggestions in Committee, and the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health pointed out the difficulties in regard to one or two of the suggestions. This is a method which avoids the difficulty. If there are other objections may we have suggestions for a better method?
The main point I want to make is that the interest excited in the country, and in the farming newspapers and Press generally, has concentrated itself upon this question of unequal incidence. The Minister himself has talked more than once about the obvious fact that the depression which has given rise to this Bill is, in the main, a depression in arable farming. He can be quoted to show that it is not the grass farms which are suffering, not the grass farms which would have given rise to the proposals in this Bill. The main ground for the Bill, we know, is the distress of a large class of farmers: and the second the avowed object of increasing the employment on the land which was referred, to by the tribunal in its report. We are told now that there is another argument, and another ground for the Bill; that it is a matter of simple justice which ought to have been remedied long ago. If it is a question of justice there is surely no justice in the unequal apportionment of justice! Nobody can deny that. The Minister the other day, on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Credits Bill, said that I wanted to benefit Norfolk, but not Somerset-shire. On the contrary, may I point out that I myself am the possessor of only one farm, a grass farm in Essex, and I cannot say that my grass land in Essex has suffered in any sort of degree
to entitle me or my tenant to any help under this Bill.
We on these benches want to support the Measure in so far as it confers relief on those who really need it. Therefore some method, it seems to us, is required to discriminate between one class and another. We suggest this method as one form in which discrimination might be carried out, and it avoids the objection raised in Committee by the Noble Lord that any new machinery or new assessment would be needed. It seems to be clear that anybody who knows the parish, and certainly the overseers, or the Assessment Committee, as the case may be, possessing an Ordnance 25-inch map, have the acreage of every field. Everybody knows what fields are or are not arable. If you want to find lands which are doubtful you have got to go to the East, to Arabia or to Turkey; where they scratch a bit of land one year and then leave it fallow for about 10 years But everybody in this country knows which is arable and which is not. It may be said that to fix a half is arbitrary; but I submit that it is almost the general principle that farms are either mainly arable or mainly grass. You have an enormous number of farms under one quarter arable. You have an enormous number over three-quarters arable. There are not many farms which are anywhere near the border line so as to give rise to difficulties of administration. You have mainly got the two classes.
The tribunal went out of its way to add to its recommendations one on the depressed condition of farming and arable land. They state that:
Depression in agriculture has affected most seriously the arable districts.
Again,
The most urgent matter is to maintain the arable area.
They go on to say that the main arguments for doing so is that arable farming helps the national food supply, and in the highest degree provides the required sum of labour.
I have noticed that since the Second Reading Debate the papers in all parts of the country have, to a degree which has surprised me, criticised the Bill on this very ground, that it will cause certain parts of the country which are in need, even agricultural parts of the country,
to put their hands in their pockets, and find the money for districts which are not in need. The taxpayer of the South—not to mention East Anglica again—e.g., the taxpayers of Dorsetshire are in fact going to be fined, and we in the arable districts are to be made to pay for a large class of people who are in no need at all. Cannot some scheme be devised by which the benefit should be on a more pro rata standard? In Shropshire and in Herefordshire you have farmers who, even since the depression began, have made such good profits that they have even bought their farms in the last year or two. Take a case which I have in my mind of a very large farm to which this Bill, if it becomes law in its present form, will make to the farmer a downright present of about £120 a year. It is a very handsome capital value, let us say, of about £2,000, and somebody has to find the money. But why should it be taken from pockets which are not to benefit unless there is some sort of principle and reason in the allocation of that benefit?
You can take an arable area, and a grass area in the shape of the four large arable counties, and, on the other hand, the five large grass counties amounting to about the same area, and the benefit which will be derived by those four arable counties will be about £285,000, while the benefit derived by the five large grass counties will be £452,000. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Board of Agriculture, or the Ministry of Health, to find some means of rectifying that inequality. This proposal is in the shape of a great public benefaction, in fact, one might call it charity. It is really indiscriminate charity, and it is a thing against which we think some protest ought to be made. It is more than indiscriminate, in fact, it is a kind of inverted charity for which no rhyme nor reason can be advanced. The Government may want to give to him that bath, but surely it is not desirable to take away from him that bath not. I trust the Minister is going to suggest some means by which we can devise a scheme so as to make the benefit meet the needs.

Mr. R. RICHARDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
We think that this Bill is not only bad in principle but in its incidence, and
we are not convinced that the industry of agriculture is unduly depressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] At any rate, there is depression in other industries as well as agriculture, and those who have investigated this question impartially will not find that the depression in agriculture has been so much felt in the arable districts of England. The other day the president of the Farmers' Unions said that he could not see that in the dairy and rearing districts agriculture had suffered much during the last three or four years. If it be true that the rearing districts had not suffered, then we feel that those districts have not the same claim to the relief which is suggested in this Bill. The suggestion made here is that some deliberate attempt ought to be made to see that the amount of arable land in this country is not allowed to fall at least below a certain minimum. Every one who has investigated agriculture has been impressed by the great decline in arable cultivation during the last thirty or forty years, and if any relief is to be given it should be done with the object of maintaining arable cultivation at as high a level as we possibly can. I represent a part of the country where the relief given will be to farmers who have not suffered very much during the recent depression, but I suggest that if the farmers of Norfolk and Lincoln who are farming some of the best land in this country have cause to complain, I am not suggesting that those who have to cultivate the poorer land in other parts of the country should not receive some benefit. That is a proof of the very bad incidence of this particular Bill. I suggest that if we are to relieve agriculture, we on this side of the House are convinced that this method of relief is essentially bad, even as between different people living in a rural community, such as the small shopkeeper and others, who are at the present moment over-rated just as much as your agricultural community. The claim we make is that successive Governments have been unfair in dealing with the rural districts, and they have imposed excessive burdens upon them in respect of roads and other matters.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now raising points which are more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill. This Measure has passed the Second Reading and the Committee stage. We are on the Report stage, and
therefore the hon. Member must confine his remarks to questions dealing with arable land, which is the point raised by the Amendment.

Mr. RICHARDS: I do not want to do anything to discourage agriculture, or the relief which is to be given with a view to encouraging agriculture. My point is that if we are to give relief to agriculture, let us give it in the direction of cultivating arable land, which is so desirable. We must remember that arable cultivation gives a much larger degree of employment, because, speaking generally, four men per acre are employed, but where there is less arable land it falls to less than one man per acre. It has now been proved that arable cultivation is possible in the higher parts of the country, and there is nothing wrong in suggesting that the relief should be given in proportion to the arable cultivation.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think this Amendment hits one or two blots in the Bill. I do not think that the Amendment provides a very appropriate remedy for those blots. It is quite true that the present distribution of money is such that it gives most relief where least is needed. It gives relief to those branches of agriculture which cannot make a real claim for it, and it gives the least to those who can put in the strongest claim. To that extent this Amendment hits that blot. A further blot on the Bill is that you grant public money, and you get no public advantage for it. I presume you could have granted public money to agriculture in such a way as to encourage the kind of agriculture which is most in need of it, or which, in the national interest, is most required, although it may not be the most profitable. This Bill does nothing of that kind, and by the forms of the House and the ruling of Mr. Speaker we are not able to discuss what I think would be the appropriate remedy. If we could have discussed the method of distribution and a flat rate per acre we should have been able in that case to have given a greater relief to the arable land, which is so badly hit at the present time, and less relief to those branches of agriculture that are not doing so badly at the present time.
If I am challenged on that point, I would like to take the case of sheep farms, or, at all events, those which are not arable farms. It is a fact that people
are selling their sheep to-day at prices 100 per cent. above the prices obtaining before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is so, and I can prove it from the Report which has been issued by the Board of Agriculture upon agricultural products. There are some branches of that industry which are positively booming, and under these circumstances I cannot see how those prices are likely to come down. There is a shortage of over 4,000,000 sheep in this country, if you compare it with the number we had before the War. What is the remedy to secure those prices going down? If hon. Members opposite challenge my figures, then they must have it out with the Minister of Agriculture, who must have circulated inaccurate statistics, and I am quite prepared to refer them to the Minister of Agriculture.
There is one particular branch which is not doing so well. The present Bill gives relief to the richest and most fertile land and least to the poorer kinds of land. I confess that I do not like this proposal. With regard to the Amendment, the best you can say for it is that it exposes certain blots in the Bill which are admitted even by the supporters of this legislation. I do not believe that the remedy proposed is very appropriate, and it will be difficult to work. I very much regret that we have not had a proper chance of dealing with this subject effectively in Committee. We had a discussion on the question of distribution which lasted about one hour and is contained in about eight pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT. Because we had that discussion we are now prevented from proposing what is really the only means of dealing effectively with arable land. That would have given a much larger relief to the arable land which may be rented at 10s. or 15s. an acre, and much less to building and accommodation land which is now going to receive out of public funds relief to which it is not in the least entitled. The theory upon which the Government is acting is that there are certain branches of agriculture which have a claim upon public money in the shape of relief. This is not more than a sop which averages about £6 per holding in England and Wales, but it is given as a sop. It certainly connot be said, as the Minister of Health said, that agriculture must be
helped in this way before it can recover itself. Because it is necessary to deal with that, the Minister of Agriculture thinks he is quite entitled to throw public money about and to give it to a number of people who certainly do not deserve it—to give it to holders of urban land which is not agricultural. There is, in consequence, going to be under this Act, as there was under previous Acts, a certain amount of relief given to people who are depressed—that I am prepared to admit—but there will also be a considerable amount of money paid in quarters which cannot possibly make out a just claim for it.

Sir R. SANDERS: The only theory of the Labour party appears to be that men should have their bread without butter. That is the only theory I can see which justifies this Amendment. The proposal is that those who grow bread shall get some remission of taxation, but those who produce butter shall get none. You are not doing anything for arable land by this Amendment. You propose to leave it in exactly the same position as it would be under the Bill, but you propose to take away whatever relief the Bill gives from those who produce butter, cheese, and other necessary articles of human food in this country. There seems to be a sort of grudge against men who hold grass farms and produce the milk which the children of our country so greatly need.

Mr. N. BUXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in favour of arable dairy farming?

Sir R. SANDERS: I differ entirely from the whole principle embodied in the speeches we have heard from the other side this afternoon. I cannot agree that we want this Bill in order to give charity, as one hon. Member said. I do not call it a sop, or charity, or a dole, or a subsidy. I regard it as a plain matter of justice to those who have been paying too much for a great many years past. There is another thing of which I would remind hon. Members opposite. They speak about our giving money as a sop to agriculture. Not a halfpenny of this money is going to agriculture. It is not to be paid to the farmer, it is to be paid to the other ratepayers of the district, and it is to save their pockets that this money is voted.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is now following the example set on the other side, and touching upon Second Reading points.

Sir R. SANDERS: The grass farmer, quite as much as the arable farmer, has a grievance against his neighbour with the same income in that he is paying a very much larger share of his income towards local taxation. It is intended by this Amendment that the grass farmer shall continue to pay exactly what he does at the present time towards education, police, Poor Law, roads, and so on. It is proposed that he should continue to contribute double or treble as much as his neighbour who has the same income, and he is to do that because he happens to be a farmer of grass land. Why should he be mulct in that heavy manner? He gets no more benefit than his neighbour from any of the services I have named. His ability to pay is no greater, and there is no reason why he should pay more than his neighbour with the same income. On the ground that he has been unfairly treated in the past, and that we desire to remedy his grievance, I cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. R. PATTINSON: I have been a good deal astonished to find that the poor, miserable grass farmer is deemed by some Members of this House not to be worthy of consideration. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the case of the farmer in the County of Lincoln who has to farm land which is a good deal more grass than arable for the simple reason that he takes in certain common rights and grows mangoldwurtzel. He has attached to his farm some of the coldest clay land in England which is absolutely unsuitable for growing corn, as was proved during the War. Heaps of this land was ploughed up during the War with disastrous results to those who owned it, to those who farmed it, and to the nation at large. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton) be adopted it will simply mean that many of my constituents in the Grantham Division will be deprived of the relief which is equitably due to them. We do not claim relief on the simple ground that we are badly off; we claim it on the ground that the burden on the land is greater than it should be, and that the
time has come, whether it be for arable land or for grass land, when we should be granted some measure of relief from the excessive charges placed on the backs of the agricultural community—charges which that community is not able to bear. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) why it is that a man who farms land adjacent to a large urban district is not to have relief simply because it may be potential building land? After all, that man is not making a living out of the value of the land as potential building land. There is no profit coming to him from that fact. Whatever profit does ultimately come will go to the landowner, and then will be the time to tax the landowner upon it. I am quite willing to assist in doing that at the proper time. So far as the occupier to-day is concerned, he is as worthy of relief as any other man in the farming industry, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will continue to resist this Amendment, the carrying of which would be disastrous to many men who live in my division. I well remember the efforts of that noble champion of agriculture, the late Lord Chaplin, on behalf of the occupiers of land whom we to-day wish to save from disaster. Take Lincoln Heath to-day. I believe some of the Londesborough estates have recently been sold and one farm has been bought by Scotsmen from across the border. They are coming down to Lincolnshire to till that farm. They are going to lay it down to grass, I am told. I can only say, good luck to them if they can keep it from being prairie in the end. The truth of the matter is that the whole agricultural community are suffering by reason of the burdens which this House has placed on them in order to provide for the services of the public. As I understand it, a Liberal principle is that the burdens should be put on the backs of those best able to bear it, and I am surprised therefore that my Labour and Liberal Friends are not willing to give support to this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I can see we made a mistake in moving this Amendment. We did not appreciate the real object of the Government in bringing in this Bill. We thought, and judging from the Second Reading speeches we were entitled to think, that the Govern-
ment, in introducing the Bill, had an idea of providing more employment in agriculture. They were so anxious to help the unemployed that they were willing to relieve the rates and put the money into the landlords' pockets in order that they might spend it on employment. We thought they were anxious to provide employment by making it possible to keep land in cultivation instead of allowing it to go out of cultivation, and, believing that, we were indiscreet enough to suggest that the greatest relief should be given to that land which is at prsent under the plough and which would go out of cultivation if this relief were refused. Now we find that that is not the object of the Government. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that this is a bread and butter Bill for the whole of agriculture, and that it is unjust and unfair to the industry that you should give bread and butter to one agriculturist and not to another. That is a beautiful theory—beautiful for us, because we provide the bread and butter and they eat it. If one section of the industry is going to have bread and butter the other sections of the industry had also better have it. But let us get rid of all this cant and humbug about this being a Measure intended to solve the unemployment problem and to lead to increased employment on the land.

Major WHELER: Is it not a fact that, if this Amendment be carried, not only the relief we wish to be given to agricultural land, but also the relief which was given by the Act of 1896 will be done away with entirely, and that there will be no relief for agriculture at all? If that be so, it is clear that the intention of the hon. Gentleman opposite is not to help agriculture, but to put it in a worse position than it is to-day. It is well we should realise the exact position taken up by the Labour party towards a Bill which is intended for the benefit of agriculture.

Mr. ACLAND: I should like to emphasise and reinforce the argument used by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I think the party which has brought forward this Amendment has mistaken the position and had therefore better withdraw it, and let us get on with matters which concern us more particularly. The Government have made the position
quite clear. This is not a Bill designed primarily or mainly far the relief of agriculture, but it is a Bill for the relief of the unfair incidence of rating, and the arguments which have been addressed to the House show where that relief will go. It is extremely difficult, except in regard to a small Clause of mine which the Government have accepted, to deny that the relief will ultimately go to the landowner. The Government have not, brought in this Bill to relieve agriculture or to cure unemployment in agriculture. They have not considered that where agriculture is doing worst there it needs most relief; they have simply pitched on one thing, and unless it can be argued that they have pitched on the wrong thing, there is no injustice involved in their proposal. The thing they have pitched upon is that the occupier of agricultural land, whether grass or arable, is far more highly rated than other persons in the district in which he lives, compared with the incomes which they both enjoy and with the benefit which they both get from the rates. If it can be argued that, as a matter of fact, the tenant of such land is not fairly rated compared with his income and compared with the income of other persons, then I think there is no ground for saying that the Bill is a bad Bill, which ought not to be passed. As long as the Government introduce the Bill—as apparently they did in this case—only as a Bill to remedy an injustice which exists, it seems to me that one is honourably bound to back them up, as far as one can, in removing that injustice, and we ought to support this Measure to give relief and assistance to agriculturists in their respective, districts. Considering how particularly these arable districts are suffering, I shall have to support the hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment, because the relief is not distributed in that way. But if the Minister says that this Bill does not do all that is required, and that it is not a final settlement of the agricultural position in general, but is merely a Bill to remove an admitted hardship, then one is bound to contribute, as far as one can, to removing that hardship.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While the wording of this Amendment may not be suitable,
I think the Minister in charge of the Bill should recognise that there is no desire on the part of the Mover or Seconder or any of its supporters to make it impossible to give relief where agricultural relief is really necessary. Further, it should be stated that this Amendment is perhaps the result of listening to and reading a statement made by the Minister of Health who introduced this Bill. To use his own words, he said:
Agriculture is in a desperate position, and unless something be done to assist the industry, it is clear that much of the land which is now arable must either go out of cultivation or be laid down to grass, with results that will be disastrous, not only to those actually engaged in the industry, but also to town dwellers.
If that statement be the considered feeling of the Government, obviously it shows that the arable farmer is entitled to more benefit and relief than any other section of the agricultural community. I do not suggest that all Departments of agriculture are not in a difficulty in some degree, but if, as the Minister of Health stated, those agriculturists who have now got arable farms can see only one way out, namely, by turning the arable land into grass land, is it not fair to assume that the lack of discrimination in this Bill will encourage those who have arable farms to lay them down to grass which will be the most lucrative department? If arable farmers are suffering the most they need the greatest amount of assistance. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that this Amendment would not assist the arable farmer, as he would merely get the same amount of relief after the passing of this Amendment which would he his lot if the Amendment were not passed. But the same encouragement for the arable farmer still remains to turn his land into grass, and thereby reduce the quantity of food produced in this country. I suggest to the Minister that it is the last thing any Government should do to do anything that would tend to reduce the amount of food produced in this country. If there is any sincerity in the suggestion that this allocation of some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 would assist employment, it could only do so if we maintained or improved the quantity of land that is going to be arable in future. We have had the intellectual microscopes of the Minister of Health and of the Minister of Agriculture bearing on this problem, and we are now in the position that it is about as clear as a
London fog. We do not know whether to view the question from the point of view of removing a great anomaly or of making safe seats for some Members of this House. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. R. Pattinson) appeared to confine his attention to benefits that might be derived by particular farmers in his constituency.
Although the words of the Amendment may not be the most suitable words, Members on this side of the House have no desire to withhold from agriculture the benefit agriculture is entitled to, whether it comes in the shape of relief to the arable farmer or relief to the other sections of the agricultural community, but we do want to see that the maximum number of workpeople are to be kept on the land. Secondly, we want to see the relief so equitable that no adverse effects will result. I think the Minister might reconsider this question and, if he cannot accept the Amendment, he might introduce another Clause which would give effect to what is desired.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I want to point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, I am perfectly sure, are honest in their desire to maintain arable land under cultivation, that this is a totally impossible and impracticable Amendment. How are you to draw a distinction between arable land and land under grass? Can any hon. Member opposite define what is meant by arable land? Some land is laid down in temporary pasture for one year or more and then ploughed up and a corn crop taken. Sometimes it is laid down in pasturage for two, three or four or even five years, and then it is ploughed up again. In farming there is no hard and fast lines drawn between arable and grass land.

Mr. N. BUXTON: The right hon. Gentleman challenges me with knowing nothing about agriculture, which he is quite at liberty to do. But I know quite as much of that class of land as he does, and I may tell him that it is often laid to grass for even more than the five years he speaks of. But it is perfectly obvious that the land of which he speaks is arable land, because it is periodically ploughed up at short intervals.

Mr. PRETYMAN: And that is the way that most of the land which is referred to is going down to grass. You have large
areas of land in North Lincolnshire, which is one of the most important cereal districts in England. When that land is spoken of as going from arable to grass, it does not mean that large areas are to be laid down in permanent pasture. It means that, instead of ploughing up one-half or three-quarters as arable, that area will be laid down to grass for two or three years. Half or less than half of a farm will be ploughed. If you take the whole area of the Lincolnshire Wolds, these arable farms will normally remain arable farms, but a larger proportion of them will be in temporary pasture. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) spoke of sheep farming as a separate branch of the agricultural industry. To talk in that way is simply to throw dust in the eyes of the House. It is quite true that sheep farming in Scotland or in mountain pastures is a branch by itself, and you have sheep on mountain pasture which keeps nothing but sheep. But sheep farming, as a matter of fact, is a mere part of the industry of farming in the most arable of the arable counties of England.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: The right hon. Member shows his usual attitude towards us, but I would like to point out that that is exactly what I was saying. I was not speaking of sheep on arable farms; I was referring to the particular hill farms which are concentrated on sheep. I was simply taking that as one branch of agriculture. It is no use talking of agriculture as if it were one thing. It has a number of departments.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, but I have heard him putting forward the argument that this relief should not be given because it is profitable to produce sheep. I do not agree that sheep are bringing prices 100 per cent. more than before the War, but the price is a very considerable advance. I want to say that it is only by producing sheep that a large proportion of the poorer arable lands of this country have been able to grow corn at all. I repeat, without fear of contradiction, that, with practically no exception, there is a loss to-day on every acre of cereals grown in this country. You cannot grow an acre of corn to-day unless you are to lose money on it. All you can do with your sheep is to mitigate that loss to some extent. I beg to assure hon.
Members opposite that if this Amendment were carried you would get into an extraordinary difficulty in defining what is arable land and what is not. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they really do desire to benefit agriculture, that they cannot draw hard and fast lines across the agricultural industry, between this and other particular branches of it. The man who wants relief is the man who has the heaviest burden. I trust this Bill will be accepted in the spirit which is asked for it, and that it will be a recognition by the whole of us and not one party only of the needs of agriculture.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: indicated dissent.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Well, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has a particular view, and his view is obscured by a particular crochet which he has in his head, he can see nothing else, but I hope this Bill may go as a gift from the whole of the House.

Mr. PRINGLE: The House has listened with appreciation to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), as it always does. It is true he has made out a strong case in detail against the Amendment which the House is discussing. He has suggested that, on practical grounds, it would be a matter of great difficulty to make the distinction contained in the Amendment. But, at the same time, I do not think he should have poured such contempt on the efforts of those who proposed the Amendment. After all, those hon. Gentlemen were simply endeavouring to meet an injustice which the right hon. Gentleman himself has confessed. The right hon. Gentleman himself has confessed that the operation of the relief to agricultural land is not fair in its incidence. I find that the right hon. Gentleman gave evidence before a Commission on this subject, and he was talking of the mode of relief under the existing Act. This Bill is to continue the mode of relief under the existing Act, and it rather aggravates any inequalities that there operate. The right hon. Gentleman, in giving that evidence—not making a speech in Debate, but giving evidence before a Commission for the purpose of exploring the truth—spoke in a somewhat different way. He said:
I think it is a bad method"—
that is, the method in the Bill which he is now defending—
because the relief is given to the land which is best able to bear the burden. That gets the most relief, and the land which is least able to bear the burden gets the least relief. That is inseparable from that form of relief, and that is one of the reasons, I suppose, why it is made only temporary.
After all, the Amendment before the House is an attempt to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted to be a bad method of giving relief, and, in these circumstances, the motive of the hon. Members who have proposed it might at least be free from blame. Personally, I do not attach a great deal of importance to this Amendment or to the method of distributing the relief, because I believe that in this matter it is of no consequence how you divide it; it is going to the landlord. To go on with this camouflage that it is for the farmer, whether he be a dairy farmer or an arable farmer, is keeping up a solemn farce which deceives no one. The new Clause which was adopted earlier in the day indicates exactly what the position is.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Fitzroy): We must confine ourselves to the Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am sorry. I have been dealing with certain arguments which have been adduced from the other side of the House. The question has been bandied about as to whether those who support this Amendment intend to deal unjustly with the dairy farmer, while dealing more generously with the arable farmer; and in dealing with these respective contentions I respectfully submit that I am entitled to point out that it is not going to matter to either. That is my sole object. It makes a difference, of course, in respect of the different classes of land, and that was the point of the criticism which I have quoted from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman); but in showing that it does not go to either of these people, and that, consequently, both sets of arguments are irrelevant, I am, surely, entitled to point, as an illustration, to the operation of the new Clause which has been adopted, and which in itself admits that, where there is no statutory protection for the tenant, the whole benefit will go to the landlord.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE: I submit that, if I am contending that this Amendment is a matter of no consequence, I am entitled to show on what grounds it is of no consequence, although those grounds may be inadequate. I do not, however, propose to enlarge upon the matter; I have said enough to establish the case. I can quite understand that there is some reluctance to hear this particular point of view put. We have to consider, however, whether, failing this particular method of making a distinction, there is not some other method of doing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) did suggest another method on another occasion, and what we desire to know from the Government is whether they would not consider some method of arriving at greater justice in the distribution of this relief. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford, in his speech to-day, described this as a matter of justice, and I observe that on a similar Amendment during the Committee stage he also emphasised it as a matter of justice. He regards it as a matter of justice to the agricultural industry as a whole, but, if you are giving relief, it surely goes to the root of the matter if that relief is not fairly divided. It is admitted, even by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it is not fairly divided, and, consequently, the whole argument in regard to justice is vitiated if there is inequality of distribution. In these circumstances, I think that that is a strong ground for abandoning this proposal altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford, as usual, describes this as a temporary arrangement, and says it is unnecessary, therefore, to suggest any alternative view, because something new is to be done later. That, of course, applies to the original Act, which has gone on for 26 years, and probably this will go on for an equal length of time. I hope, however, that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway will proceed with their Amendment, because it has afforded an opportunity of showing the humbug upon which the whole proposal is based. It is not a proposal to relieve those actually engaged in the industry; it is only a means, in the long run, of helping those who enjoy the rents
which are earned by those engaged in the industry.

Captain DIXON: I want to say a word on behalf of the grazing farmer, and am not going to differentiate between ordinary grass land and feeding land. I think my hon. Friend opposite, in this Amendment, is dealing with feeding land. Apart altogether from the ridiculous idea that a farmer in Wiltshire or Somerset is to be treated on different terms from a farmer in Norfolk, I should like to say that the one hope of getting enough milk for the children of England is in the grazing and feeding lands of England, and that these lands have never received the treatment which they should have received. If the farmers who work those grazing lands had had enough money to dress them with artificial manure and treat them properly, I venture to state that they could feed at least double the number of milch cows that they are feeding at the present time. In very large areas of England, also, the grazing tenants have bought their holdings, and have paid for them, I think, much more than the land was worth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear!" and, therefore, they ought to be supporting this side of the House instead of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite. It is perfectly clear that, if you do not allow the same terms to grazing farmers that are given to arable farmers, those grazing farmers will cease to carry out the purpose that they are carrying out now, that is to say, supplying milk for the children of the people of England. There is another point that I should like to raise, and that is that the grazing farmers of England have already had a serious load put upon their shoulders owing to the artificial holding up of Irish store cattle. At present store cattle are £2 or £3 more per head, and I venture to say that that is not only a tax upon the grazing farmer, but is a tax upon the people of England, because beef is dearer this year than it has ever been before. Therefore, I think it would be most unfair to the graziers of England to put on the top of this tax upon Irish cattle, which are really supplying the best beef for England, this further taxation by not giving them the same relief that is given to arable farmers.

Mr. RILEY: I am sure the Minister will accept it when I say that we on these benches do not put forward this Amendment in a factitious spirit. It is not put forward at all for the purpose of opposing the Bill. There is a point in regard to the Amendment which I do not think anyone can contend has been met, and that is that the proposed relief as arranged for in the Bill will go, so far as two-thirds of it is concerned, to the occupiers of pasture land, and, so far as one-third is concerned, to the occupiers of arable land. It has been contended to-day that this Bill is not put forward as a remedy for the distress in agriculture. It is now contended that it is put forward as a piece of rating reform, as a method of adjusting the burden of rates. I want to submit to the House that in that contention which to made now, there is an entire shifting of the ground. The whole purpose of the Minister's speech, when he introduced the Bill, was that this Bill was brought forward to meet depression in agriculture.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This particular Amendment proposes to confine the relief given to holdings which are half-arable. It has nothing to do with the proposals contained in the Minister's speech.

Mr. RILEY: I submit, with due deference, that what I am saying is quite material to that point. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, used these words:
It is an important fact that the complaints as to the state of the agricultural industry are not nearly so severe from grass counties, which after all represent about two-thirds of the whole.
The Minister indicated, therefore, that the purpose was to relieve the difficulties of those who were engaged in arable farming. That was the clearly expressed purpose of the Minister on the introduction of the Bill. Our contention is that the Bill, as it now stands, does not give relief to the right people, but gives it to the occupier of grass land, and it is not contended that they need relief to anything like the same extent as those who are occupying arable land. Let me remind the House of one striking illustration with regard to the claims of arable occupiers as against those of pasture farmers. It is a case that was given during the Committee stage of this very Bill. The hon. Member for South Norfolk
(Major T. W. Hay), whom I do not see in his place to-day, instanced the cases of Cambridgeshire and Derbyshire. Cambridgeshire, which is purely, or at any rate very largely, an arable county, and is of approximately the same size as the County of Derby, received £13,000 under the 1896 Act, while Derbyshire, which is mainly pasture, got £26,000. Under this Bill Derbyshire, which still needs relief less than Cambridgeshire, will get twice the amount that Cambridgeshire will get. The Minister said to-day that this Bill is to give a measure of justice to agriculture. We on this side say that in allocating the relief equally to arable and pasture land, it is giving the bulk of the relief to the land which does not require it and the least to the land that does require it. One other consideration I wish to urge which may appeal to some hon. Members opposite. Whatever other merits this Amendment may have it would reduce the amount required by about two-thirds. The amount proposed to be given is now £2,750,000. On the Minister's own showing the amount of arable land is approximately one-third of the whole and assuming, which is not the case, that the value per acre is the same—as a matter of fact arable is less than pasture land—it will reduce the amount required by about two thirds. The Amendment represents a saving of £2,000,000 on this £2,750,000. On the ground that the incidence of this relief is entirely unfair and inequitable and extravagant, I support the Amendment.

Mr. LAMB: The Amendment proposes to confine the relief that is given to arable land as against the general relief which it is intended should be given to agriculture as a whole. That would have two effects. First, it would make the Bill practically unworkable, and secondly, in any case if machinery were set up to make the Bill workable with this Amendment in it, it would so far delay it that it would be disastrous, because what little relief is going to be received by agriculture under this Bill is required immediately and with as little delay as possible. With regard to the first point it would be almost impossible to ascertain what is arable and what is grass land, not only because of the varying periods for which the land is laid down, but also for the very fact that the amount of land which could honestly be called arable on
a farm one year would vary very considerably as against the next, and it would necessitate the appointment of a very large number of what I term unnecessary officials to ascertain and to check the amount of land which, under the Amendment, was entitled to the relief given. Again, the question of the quality of the land comes in, because the amount of food produced from it is taken into consideration. There is a very peat deal of variation between the amount of food which one piece of land will produce as against other land in other circumstances and under other conditions. It has been said by some that the objects of the Bill are to increase the amount of arable land and the amount of labour employed in rural areas. Both are admirable objects, which on other occasions I should have pleasure in supporting, but on this occasion I consider they are not germane to the Amendment, because this is a measure of rating reform, and as such can be properly considered as a relief, not to any particular type of agriculture, but to agriculture as a whole. I hope the Minister will continue to resist the Amendment.

Mr. J. C. DAVIES: There is only one objection to the Amendment that I should like to press and that is that its acceptance involves the exclusion from the benefits of the Bill of at least one-half of the farmers in my constituency. I go further and say that it would mean the exclusion of at least three-fourths of the farms in North Wales. I should like to join issue with hon. Members who have expressed the view that it is only the arable farmers who need assistance. From the best information I can obtain, speaking for my own constituency, the pasture farmers need assistance almost as much as the others. In fact the distress is very acute. The condition in North Wales is somewhat remarkable. Largely owing to the fictitious prosperity which prevailed from 1916 to 1921 the price of land went up immensely, and in consequence a large number of estates were brought to the market and a large number of farms were sold. A large number of tenant farmers bought their farms at exorbitant prices. Really they had no option in the matter. They either had to buy or to turn out, and at the time there were no houses available. We all know the deep attachment of the tenant farmer to his home.
They were induced to offer much higher prices, relying on the supposed security of Acts of Parliament, and of course the Government of the day were guilty of a breach of faith to the farmer when they abolished the Agriculture Act. They are now in dire distress and they need all the assistance we can give them. I dare say the position in many other parts of the country is somewhat similar. I am only sorry the Government did not go further and did not follow the consistent and logical course and abolish all rates on the land.

Mr. HARDIE: In Glasgow we have 4,000 acres in our city—[An HON. MEMBER: "Is it agricultural?"] I am asked if it is agricultural, and I might also be asked whether it is arable or grass. Since the surface of these acres is covered with old tins and broken bottles, it is very difficult to say what the character of the land is, but the owners of those acres in Glasgow are going to get relief under this Bill to help them to wait till the price gets higher by the demands of the community when we are trying to rid our city of slums. If the Bill was going to deal with the agricultural side alone, there would be no need for me to cut in on this question. Grass lands are not known in Glasgow because, even if we could get rid of the old tins and the bottles and started to put in crops, as soon as they put their heads above the ground the fumes from the chemical works at St. Rollox would lay them all dead in half an hour. [Interruption.] I am quite sure from his appearance that the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. J. Erskine) knows nothing at all about agriculture. A man who knows about agriculture in this House does not wear spats. I hope the Minister, before letting the thing go finally, will find some way of giving protection to the citizens of Glasgow, who have always had sitting on their necks, metaphorically speaking, a group of old men of the sea with a bit of land always waiting for an increase of value due to the people who care to go in for industry, and now they are going to get benefits under this Bill. I believe if the Minister of Agriculture would do something of this kind at the next election he would have his majority increased from 21, as I believe it was, to 23. I think he deserves it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Charles Roberts.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that you, Sir, are ruling out the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Burslem and myself to leave out "one quarter." Might I put it to you that it has to be taken in conjunction with the one immediately succeeding it, and it will make the Clause read so that, the remission shall go, not to the agricultural land, but to the improvements upon the land, that is to say, buildings, agricultural machinery and other improvements. The Amendment is devised so that within the ambit of the Bill we may consider an alternative scheme to giving relief to agriculture which would not go into the pockets of the landlord, namely, a relief upon their improvements instead of a relief to the land value.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment appears to me to raise the question of land values, which is outside the scope of this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This does not raise the question of land values. The only question it raises is whether the relief should be given on improvements or on the land which is not improved. I submit that relief on improvements upon agricultural land is within the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: My ruling is that it is outside the ambit of the Bill. Mr. Charles Roberts.

Mr. RILEY: Am I to take it that you pass over my Amendment, which is to provide for an appeal to a County Court against any increase of rent? In view of the fact that the purpose of the Amendment which has been passed over was to secure that the relief goes to those for whom it was intended, may I point out that the same principle was accepted in the Corn Production Act? In the previous Act, when a subsidy was voted, a provision was made that rents should not be increased.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. Mr. Charles Roberts.

Mr. N. BUXTON: May I submit an argument in regard to the Amendment standing in my name which you have
excluded, providing that no occupier who shall pay any person in his whole-time employment wages at a rate less than 30s. per week shall be entitled to relief under this Section?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Charles Roberts.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "quarter" ["substituted references to one quarter"], to insert the words
Provided that no relief shall be given under this Act in respect of any land where the gross estimated rental of the land, apart from the buildings, as determined at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, is higher than it was for the same land as determined at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirteen.
This Amendment was not put down when the Bill came before the Committee, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture has not made his mind up about it. There is substance in it, and I put it forward because it comes from high authority. It is merely an adaptation of an Amendment which was moved to the principal Act by Mr. McKenna. In these circumstances, it demands the consideration of the Government. We hope soon to see Mr. McKenna as Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We understand that he will soon be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he will have the task of finding the money to supply the funds for the purposes of this Bill, and we ought to know the views of the prospective Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we ought to consider the attitude which Mr. McKenna holds towards all this class of legislation. Although I have proceeded upon these lines, I have modified the rigidity of Mr. McKenna's attitude in regard to the principal Act, and I have put forward my Amendment in a much less stiff form than his original proposal. I do not suppose that everybody changes their opinions by the lapse of time, and there may be some help and guidance in learning from the opinions of the wise in the past with regard to this matter.
Mr. McKenna's views were that this kind of legislation was not intended as a measure for the readjustment of local burdens. If so, he said it was bad, because it did not proceed on right principles. He believed the Act could only come into operation where the agricul-
tural interests has suffered distress, and that the money should go more freely where it was wanted, and should be saved where it was not wanted. He proposed, therefore, that relief should only be given where the assessable value of the land was at least 20 per cent. below the standard at which it stood 20 years previously. I have suggested that the relief should not be given where the rent is higher than it was in 1913. This is not the Amendment to which I attach the most importance. I believe the right way to do it would be by a flat rate per acre, but that has been ruled out and we are not allowed to discuss it. If by the terms of the Financial Resolution a number of other variants have been ruled out, I do not see what we can do except to follow the proposal of Mr. McKenna and to limit the relief to where real agricultural distress is shown. That distress can be shown in the rental, because if the rental has not been reduced below where it stood in 1913, it would be very difficult to show that there is any real case of agricultural distress. If you are dealing with land which is rented at a higher rent, for instance land which during the War, as a result of the higher prices which prevailed during the War, was put up in price, and the rentals have not been reduced, it seems to me that the right remedy is not to come to the House and ask for public money, contributed by the general consumers, but to lower the rents.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member has forgotten that repairs have increased very much in cost.

Mr. ROBERTS: I have not forgotten that, and I have provided for it.

Mr. HOHLER: It seems to me that this Amendment has nothing to do with rent. It relates to land where the gross estimated rental of the land, apart from buildings, is higher than it was in 1913. The whole of the argument is entirely out of order.

Mr. ROBERTS: The gross estimated value must have some relation to rent.

Sir F. BANBURY: It must be remembered that the land is not rated separately from the buildings.

Mr. ROBERTS: I think the right hon. Baronet is wrong on that point. The
gross estimated rental is, I am sure, stated separately. Under the Act of 1896 the assessment committees are specially enjoined to separate it. I have provided that where improvements have been made, repairs, etc., or additional buildings, they would not count. I am only dealing with land apart from buildings. The Government have to show that there is some real distress. They are always standing first on one leg and then on the other. The answer will probably be, because it has already been given, that it is not a question of distress, but a question of readjustment of local burdens, and that therefore any question of the comparative value of land has to be left out of account. The whole attitude of the Government is that they are going to relieve perishing agriculture, but when illustrations have been given showing that this is not so imperative in certain respects, they fall back upon a totally different and inconsistent line of argument, namely, that they have to adjust local rating. If there is any real urgency in agricultural distress, and if it is a mere question of remedying the admitted anomalies, why be in this hurry; why do it this year?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether this is the opening of a Second Reading Debate. It is going on those lines. The Debate on the previous Amendment pointed in that direction. I cannot allow a Second Reading Debate on these Amendments.

Mr. ROBERTS: I accept your ruling, Sir, and perhaps at a later stage there will be an opportunity of dealing with the matter. I am entitled to ask that there shall be some proof of distress or depression, as recorded in the gross estimated value of the land. That was the principle laid down by Mr. McKenna, and I think it is a sound principle. Do the Government dissent from the expressed views of their prospective colleague, or do they think that his views are as unsound as they think mine often are?

Mr. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?

Amendment not seconded.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Falconer.

Captain BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late.

CLAUSE 7.—(Annual value of agricultural lands and heritages for county and parish rates in Scotland.)

As from the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and during the continuance of this Act—

(1) the annual value of all agricultural lands and heritages in Scotland shall, for the purposes of all the rates leviable by county councils and parish councils, be held to be the nearest aggregate sum of pounds sterling to one-half of the annual value of such lands and heritages as appearing in the valuation roll, subject, in the case of rates leviable by parish councils, to the deductions in pursuance of Section thirty-seven of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845:
(2) every occupier of agricultural lands and heritages in Scotland shall be entitled, on payment of the occupier's share of any rate in respect of such lands and heritages leviable by a county council or parish council, to recover from the owner of the lands and heritages by retention out of rent or otherwise one-half of the amount so paid by him, and in respect of the amount so recovered from him the owner of any lands and heritages shall be deemed to be charged therewith for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts;
(3) Section one of the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1896"), except the definition of the expression "agricultural lands and heritages" (including the proviso to that definition), shall cease to have effect save for the purpose of construing any enactment in winch that Section is referred to.

Mr. FALCONER: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), after the word "leviable" ["rates leviable by"], to insert the words "on occupiers."
6.0 P.M.
It will be necessary, in order to understand the nature and effect of the Amendments which we intend to propose, that I should explain, briefly, the system of rating in Scotland as far as its bearing upon this Bill is concerned. It is entirely different from the English system. In considering what is right to do in Scotland hon. Members must, so far as possible, leave out of account the conditions which they have in England. In Scotland the local rates have been borne, I was going to say from all time, half by the owner and half
by the occupier, while in England they are borne entirely by the occupier. The system in Scotland has been approved on a number of occasions. It was expressly approved by Lord Dunedin's Committee, which reported recently on the subject of local taxation in Scotland. Accordingly in 1896, when an Act was passed for Scotland practically at the same time as the English Act dealing with the question of relief of agricultural rates, the relief which was given by the Scottish Act was limited to occupiers. No relief was given to owners.
This subject has been considered over and over again, and in no case, so far as I know, has it ever been proposed by any Commission, Committee, or Member of Parliament, or other person, in all the Debates that have taken place, that it would be justifiable to take the taxpayers' money and pay the rates of the landlord to any extent. Under the Act of 1896 what was done for the occupier was that he was assessed on three-eighths of the rental value of his holding, as appearing on what we call the valuation roll in Scotland. That is to say, the occupier paid three-eighths of the rates levied on him. He was relieved to the extent of five-eighths. The owner was not relieved at all. With regard to the deficiency which arose through the relief of the occupier to the extent of five-eights, it was provided by the Act of 1896 that that should be met by a grant from the Exchequer. That grant was estimated according to the state of affairs existing in 1895. Some adjustments were made afterwards. Ultimately, what happened was that the amount to be paid by the Exchequer in Scotland, by way of making up the deficiency, was fixed at £180,000 a year.
Time went on and rates rose and have continued to rise until now the deficiency is £700,000. The difference between the £180,000 and the £700,000—£520,000 a year—is now borne by the other ratepayers in the district, so that the occupier is at present relieved to the extent of five-eighths of his rates, and the deficiency to the extent of £180,000 is met from the Exchequer. The balance of the deficiency, £520,000, is met by the other ratepayers in the district. That is a grossly inequitable arrangement. It was never intended. It was a blunder on the part of the Government of the day, that they should in that way impose for all time the burden of making good the deficiency in
the agricultural occupier's rate on the other ratepayers in the district. I agree that in England they have suffered in the same way, but I am dealing now with Scotland.
Coming to the proposals of the Bill to meet the situation, a sum estimated by the Government at £480,000 is to be provided out of the Exchequer. Of that sum, no part is to be applied towards meeting the deficiency and rectifying the blunder under which the burden of £520,000 a year was placed on the shoulders of the other ratepayers. What is proposed is that the £480,000 should go, to the extent of something between one half and two thirds, to the relief of the landlords, and that only one third should go to the relief of the occupier's rate. As regards the parish rate. I understand, though there are some adjustments, into the intricacies of which I do not ask the House to go at present, that there again two thirds are to go to the relief of the owner's rates and only one third to the relief of the occupier's rates. But there are some adjustments, and it is something rather more than one third which goes to the occupier and something rather less than two thirds which goes to the owner.
The object of this Amendment is to limit the relief which is given under Clause 7 of the Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned, to the relief proposed by the Government to be given to the occupiers. This Amendment raises a very important question. It is not necessary, and I do not propose to enter into questions as to what is the ultimate destiny of the relief which is given to the occupier. All I would say is that from my experience there can be no doubt that on the first occasion when the rent comes to be reconsidered, both landlord and tenant will take into account the amount of the outgoings and the rates. Neither landlord nor tenant is such a fool as to fix the rent between them without taking that into account. I have been surprised to hear that the amount of outgoings from a holding is not taken into account when rents are adjusted, but I am not going to discuss that. Able and more authoritative men than I have pronounced very strongly on the subject. The present Secretary for Scotland, who, I suppose, so far as Scotland is concerned, is responsible for this Bill, used language in 1896 which makes me surprised that he should
be to-day a partner in this Measure. I believe that Mr. McKenna also expressed himself on the Act of 1896—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the Third Reading Debate.

Mr. FALCONER: I pass from that to the clear object of this Amendment. Are there any good grounds to justify this House in taking the taxpayers' money and applying it towards the payment of the rates of owners of agricultural land in Scotland? That is the real issue. The Government are putting their hand into the pockets of the taxpayers to pay directly to the landlord a proportion of his rates. There is no precedent for that and no authority. Of all the people who have considered this question of agricultural rates not one, so far as I have been able to find out, has been bold enough to say that it is justifiable to pay the rates to the landlord. If this proposal is supported on the ground of the hard times suffered by those engaged in agriculture through depression or legislation, that does not apply to the landlord. On the contrary, the legislation which has led to so much injustice and injury to some farmers has been to the advantage of the landlord. He has been selling his farms, raising his rents, and taking advantage of the temporary guaranteed prices, and if that is the case, why are you now to relieve him of his portion of his rates? The farmer may ask for some help, because Parliament has injured him, but the landlord can make no such claim.
But there is another point. This payment of rates to the landlord is not going to benefit the industry of agriculture. If you pay the landlord's rates no part of that will filter down into the pockets of the farmer or the farm servant. He will be entitled to keep it all himself, and he will do so. Then there is another point. Consider the injustice which is going to be done to other ratepayers in the district. The main ground upon which the landlord or tenant farmer can appeal for relief from his rates is that at the moment the local authorities are performing services which are of a national character, and the burden of providing for them should be borne to a much larger extent than it is at present by national funds. But that applies to every other ratepayer in the district, as well as to the owner of agri-
cultural land. The owner of a house has to pay his road rate, his education rate, and all the other rates, in just the same way as the owner of an estate or a farm. There is no ground for discrimination. It has often been said that the rental of a farm is not a fair indication of the income which a farmer gets from his farm, but in the case of a landlord that does not apply, for the rent which the landlord receives, less the outgoings for repairs, etc., which are allowed under the Scottish Act, is a true and just indication of the income which he gets from the farm. On that ground there is no reason for dealing with the owner's rates differently from the rates of other property in the district. Nor is there a material difference between them as to the benefit of the service received in respect of the rate. The owner of agricultural land gets as much benefit as the owner of other property.
Let me put another aspect of the case The country now cannot afford to make payments of this kind to owners of land. On the Scottish Estimates recently we debated all day how money could be got for ex-service men. Would any landlord or any supporter of landlords get up in public and say that the landlord's rates must come first, and that land for the ex-service man must come second? Such a thing could not be stated. Are education and all the other services to be set aside for the benefit of the landowner? Must the public services be starved, and cannot the landlords wait even until the Commission to be set up reconsiders the whole scheme of local rating? Let me deal with answers which have been given to my proposal, so far as I have received answers at all. In the first place it is suggested that the day of great estates is passing away. I really cannot see how that affects the argument at all. But the statement has been put forward by the Scottish Office time and again. Whether you have the estate in one large block, with hundreds of farms, or whether you have individual farms, of course you have an owner and a tenant, and equity remains the same.
Another suggestion made is that there is a partnership between the landlord and the occupier of the farm, and sometimes even the farm servant is drawn into the partnership. That is the sort of thing that it is very nice to say at a gathering
between landlord and tenant, but there is no substance in it. There is none of the elements of partnership in the matter. I am not dealing with a limited definition of partnership. If the owner of a house fits it up for any purpose, whether that of a grocer or draper or a public house, and lets it to a tenant in order that that tenant may use it as business premises, no one suggests that that makes the owner a partner in the venture. It is the same in the case of a farm. The one thing that the tenant has to watch carefully is to protect himself against being involved in payment of too heavy a rent, or against agreeing to terms which are in the interests of the landlord and not in the interests of himself. There is a constant conflict of interests to that extent. We have in our minds the fact that in hundreds and thousands of cases the landlords have been turning out their tenants in order to sell the land. Is that the Act of a partner? If there were a partnership which came to an end in ordinary law, and one partner tried to take advantage of the other, any lawyer would say that that would be regarded as a fraud upon the partnership, and both partners would be bound to deal fairly with one another on the termination of a partnership.
There is no business interest of the landlord, so far as the tenant is con corned, except to see that his land is well cultivated and that he gets payment of his rent. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear no more of this theory of partnership as between landlord and tenant. One of the greatest mistakes that the farmers of this country have made is that they have not treated their arrangements as matters of hard business, and have not protected, themselves as they ought to have done in questions with the landlord. If they had done so they would not have been compelled to turn out now or to buy their holdings as they have done in recent times. Another point raised was as to what would be the position of the owner-occupier in Scotland compared with the owner-occupier in England. In England the owner-occupier, of course, gets the whole of this relief. In Scotland, on the other hand, under the scheme which I have indicated, the owner-occupier would receive the five-eights relief, or six-eights now, in respect of his occupier's rate. He would also have to pay the owner's rates, and
instead of one-fourth relief from that he would have to pay in full. When these men bought their holdings they bought them on the basis that they would have to pay the owner's rates. I do not know what the exact figures are, but I think that not one in ten of the holdings of the country is run by an owner-occupier. Are the Government, for the sake of doing something for the owner-occupier, to which he is not entitled except as a matter of generosity, to throw away public money in paying the rates of the other nine-tenths? Having regard to the obligation to use public money prudently and with discrimination, it is impossible to justify the proposal.
Let me say how I propose to deal with the money which would be available if the landlord's rates were not relieved. There would be a sum of something like £300,000 a year. The first claim upon that sum is that justice should be done to the other ratepayers of the district. They have been bearing for years a great burden and a much more serious injustice than anything which has been done to the owner or occupier of agricultural land. The first duty is to put right the blunder committed in 1896. A very large part of that relief will go to the agricultural owners and other owners of property, and the rest of it will go to the occupiers. In that way the agricultural landlords will be getting their fair share, with other people, of this fund, and approximately equal justice will be done between them to that extent. I cannot discuss the subsequent Amendments which deal with matter, because that would be out of order. I think that as a matter of policy this proposal of the Bill is most unwise. If the landlords, when they have their party in power, are to get their rates paid, what answer are you to give to the farm servant when he asks for money to be put into his pocket out of the Exchequer? I think it is all bad.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to Second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has explained the situation in Scotland with regard to rating, and I do not propose to go further into that aspect of the question, but rather to support some of the arguments for the acceptance of this Amendment. I regard the proposal of the Bill to introduce for the first time a new
principle of relict of rates for a certain class of land owners as one of its greatest defects, though I agree that the principle of the Bill is open to challenge in many other directions. We, as a House of Commons, are asked to give a decision upon a new proposition which has never yet been submitted to the House in the form in which it is in this Bill. It is proper to consider that since the 1896 Act there have been quite a number of opportunities for the reconsideration of the whole question of local taxation, and during that period every aspect of this question has been very fully discussed. It is, therefore, all the more mysterious that we should be faced at this moment with a proposal which has never yet had shape in the minds of those; who have devoted an immense, amount of research to the question in past years, and which has, indeed, been rejected by them when it was actually brought forward. The Royal Commissions and Committees included the Royal Commission on Local Taxation of 1896, which reported in the year 1902. In considering the situation in Scotland, particularly with regard to agricultural rates, it reported as follows:
We think that the provision contained in the Agricultural Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act, 1896 (which has been continued to 1906 by an Act of 1901), whereby the occupier of agricultural lands and heritages is exempted from payment of rates upon five-eighths of the annual value of those properties, should be continued.
The Report also stated:
The agricultural owner does not, however, enjoy, and we do not propose that he should be granted, any such exemption.
That makes it quite clear that this was a matter which the Commission had carefully considered and rejected, six years after the Act of 1896 had come into operation. I would point out to the Solicitor-General that he was wrong in the view he expressed in a former debate, that the matter had not been reconsidered during that period, as the Commission had been asked to consider and deal with it. Then we had the Departmental Committee of 1912, which never put forward this proposal at all but which submitted the view that the Act of 1896 should be continued. In 1916, we had the Selborne Committee which dealt with the matter very fully and which, in turn, substantially agreed that the only improvement under the existing system
was to see that the gap was filled up and that no additional burden was thrown upon the ratepayers in respect of the relief which was granted. Last year two other important bodies reported upon this matter. The tribunal of investigation set up to deal with the position of the agricultural industry submitted proposals entirely different from the proposals in the Bill, and their suggestions cannot be regarded as having been met in any degree by the Measure which is now under consideration. There was also the Report of the Departmental Committee on local taxation in Scotland—the Dunedin Committee—which reported last year. It is quite true they regarded themselves as precluded from dealing with the question of extending the amount of the Imperial grant in relief of rates, but notwithstanding that, they carefully considered the position in which agriculture was placed at the time and they say, referring to the high profits of the War period:
It is true that for a period during the War the farmers had a term of exceptional prosperity. That has now passed and the situation from this point of view is in no way superior to the pre-War period.
They do not suggest it is any worse, and they proceed:
We are therefore of opinion that no change ought to be made.
It is quite obvious from both the majority and minority Reports that the whole question had been carefully considered by the Committee as to whether there should be some change. Therefore, instead of proceeding on the lines of any considered view of any body which has discussed this matter during the years since the Act of 1896 came into operation, the Government are proceeding directly in the teeth of any recommendations which have been made by introducing the proposals which we now challenge.
I regard it as most unwise and undesirable, in view of the pledge which the Government have given to this House, namely, that they are immediately about to introduce legislation of a comprehensive character dealing with the whole question of rating reform, that they should here and now commit us to a new principle, which will have to be very carefully considered in regard to its further extension. I would refer to the actual words used by the Minister of Health on the Second Reading of the
Bill. He referred to the pledge given in the King's Speech, with which we are all familiar, and he went on to say:
Hon. Members will be interested to know that our examination has now progressed so far that I hope very shortly to be able to circulate a draft of a Bill on valuation and rating reform to the local authorities and to ask for their observations thereon with a view if possible to introducing the Measure itself next year.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked, would that refer to Scotland, and he said "Yes, probably," adding:
That Bill will contain permanent provisions in regard to the rating of agricultural land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1923; col. 1796, Vol. 164.]
In view of those statements the Government have no right to ask us to insert this provision in this Bill at this time. Why have they not circulated it along with their proposals to the local authorities? Had they done so they would have received a very quick answer. We have had representations from parish councils, and other bodies in Scotland, indicating that they regard it as a great injustice that nothing is to be done to fill up the gap created owing to the deficiency in the 1896 Act before any steps are taken to deal with further relief. The Government are committing the country to a principle which may be extended in connection with the permanent relief of agricultural owners in respect of rates. Do they propose that this proposal is to be made permanent? Is it part of their permanent scheme? Are we not entitled to know just as well as the local authorities, to whom the Bill is to be circulated, what the permanent proposals are to be, and whether or not this is one of them? If they intend to commit themselves to this principle, it is a matter on which the House is entitled to information. I have good authority for the view that in the introduction of a new principle, such as the relief of landlords' rates, you should act very cautiously. The Secretary for Scotland, when a Member of this House, referred to this question of doles specifically, and during the Debate in 1896 he said:
A dole was to be given to agriculture to enable it to tide over the time before the Government inquiry into the burden of local taxation was concluded. But that was not the way to begin a permanent reform of local taxation—to give a dole for five years and rigorously exclude that class from benefit which paid the taxation.
That is exactly our case to-day. You are dealing with a limited class of landowners and excluding those who should be considered in relation to general relief. I have no desire to exclude any landlord from any fair reduction of rates. I think they deserve it along with other members of the community, but they should not be placed in a privileged position. There are many other classes of landlords besides those who own agricultural land. There are men who own houses and other forms of real property, and it is most desirable that in these matters there should be a sense of fairness and justice all round. I think I am not exaggerating the case when I say that if the question were put to many agricultural landlords themselves, as to whether they desire to take a preference over other classes of landlords or ratepayers, the answer would be that they would consider it a great mistake to do so. If I may trouble the House with another quotation, that view was very strongly expressed by the present Secretary for Scotland when in this House on the same occasion to which I have already referred he said:
He objected to this dole in his own interest as a landowner as well as in the interests of justice.
We all recognise that he was a very good landlord, and therefore this opinion comes from him with all the greater force.
He believed the landowners of Scotland had endeavoured during the past 20 trying years to do their duty by the tenants and on the whole, he thought they had done well …. but he did not think that their character would be raised by the receipt of this relief. Their public character was of more importance than 5 per cent. on their rents. He did not think the grant would give any real relief to agriculture.
That view would be reflected by a good many other landlords who believe that they are being put in an unfortunate and false position in regard to the public and the ratepayers generally by this proposal. I do not think this is going to be a form of relief which will benefit agriculture in the way intended. We have no security that the money is going to be applied towards the industry or towards the relief of the occupier or the farm servant. There are many other ways in which the industry could be benefited, but it would not be in order to go into them now. I might however suggest that the crying need of the industry is that there should be something in the form of security of
tenure for those engaged in it and there is also the question of reduction of transport rates and of wasteful public expenditure involving heavy taxation. I content myself with this concluding argument. If you do as the Government proposes and raise an issue before the country as to whether the landlord class—those who represent agricultural land particularly—are to receive a special privilege while the ratepayers are still to bear the heavy burden of the deficiency which they carry at the present moment, you will then challenge an issue which will arouse opinion from one end of the country to the other. We had the experience the other day of what happened in connection with the Land Valuation Clause of the Finance Bill. To-day you are loading the dice again and you are loading them on this occasion in favour of the agricultural landlord. By so doing, you are in breach of your trust towards the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country, whose interests should be considered together, and in seeking to secure the friendship of a particular class who may give you support at the moment, you have alienated the feelings of a much larger class who believe that an injustice is being done to them.

Mr. ASQUITH: I am not going to detain the House for more than a few minutes. Indeed, although I have been a Scottish representative here for a period of 40 years—with a brief intermission—I have never, I regret to say, shaken off the congenital inability of an Englishman to tread with anything like a sense of security amid the treacherous morasses—indeed, I might almost say the bottomless abysses—of the Scottish law of rating. It is a sealed book, and though I have tried my best, in the interval of other occupations, to acquire a little knowledge of it, I should be sorry to submit myself to examination on it by any competent authority. The issue raised here does not, however, depend on technicalities of Scottish law. I remember very well the Debates on both the English and the Scottish Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and I believe I took part in them. We opposed that legislation at the time, and I do not think it has been of any real permanent advantage to agriculture in any part of the United Kingdom. At any rate, one thing is clear so far as concerns Scotland where
the rates—which is not the case in England—have from time immemorial been divided between owner and occupier. So far as Scotland is concerned—and the question can only arise in Scotland—there was no proposal then, and there has, been, so far as I know, no proposal since, to give relief to the owner. The occupier got his relief, I quite agree, in a fixed sum. If the policy is to be continued and is inadequate to the altered circumstances of the case, there may be—and I will assume, for the purposes of my argument, that there is—a case for adding to the relief to which the Scottish occupier is supposed to be entitled; but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar) has shown, in, I think, a very conclusive speech, that this matter has been inquired into over and over again, both before and since the Act of 1896, and I am not aware that any among the various Commissions and Committees which have investigated the case ever made any such proposal as that which is contained in this Bill.
I doubt very much whether the Scottish landlords themselves, the landlords of agricultural land in Scotland, desire anything of the kind. I remember very well that my Noble Friend, as he is now, Lord Novar, when he sat with us on the Opposition side of the House, himself a Scottish landowner of large possessions, disclaimed any such desire on the part of himself or the members of his class. I do not think there is any demand from Scottish landlords, nor am I in the least satisfied that the money which it is proposed to hand over to them will of necessity go to the benefit of agriculture. This is not a case such as might be put forward in regard to England, where you have to trace the ultimate economic incidence of relief granted in the first instance to one class and distributed over a number of classes. This is a direct and absolute subsidy. It goes, without any possibility of interception, straight, into the pocket of the agricultural landlord. You have no security whatever that it will be spent for the improvement of agriculture, or that it will become part of the common fund of this imaginary partnership, which is always trotted out on these occasions on the Floor of this House, between the landlord and the farmer, and in which, I observe, the labourer is very rarely included; it is
difficult to see how he is going to benefit from this subsidy.
I represent, as the House knows, an urban constituency, and my constituents are not interested in this matter as ratepayers, or, indeed, as agricultural owners—so far as I know, the amount of agricultural land which is within the ambit of the Parliamentary burgh of Paisley is not very considerable—but they are interested as taxpayers. That is the common interest which not only Scotsmen but Englishmen share, and if instead of making a gift at the expense of the taxpayer to a limited section of Scottish landlords, it is far more in consonance with the principles of equity and the real interests of agriculture, amongst other interests, that it should go to the relief of the other ratepayers, if, indeed, you will not expend it, as you might very well do, upon purposes such as that which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer), a purpose which is very urgent and which has been grievously delayed in Scotland—namely, the settlement of ex-service men on the land. I regard this—and I have risen to make this brief protest because it seems to me to be a very serious matter of principle—as a flagrant violation of the rights of the taxpayer in the interests of a small and limited class, from which I cannot see—I have read the Debates and listened to them—that anybody has pointed out that any real advantage is likely to accrue to the community at large. Therefore, I think it is a waste of the taxpayers' money, and it is the duty of the House of Commons, as the custodian of the taxpayers' interest, to record its solemn and emphatic protest.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: After the very clear and explicit statement of the intricate methods by which this proposal is arrived at, given to the House by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer), I do not propose to attempt to cover the same ground. It was all argued out in the Standing Committee. The Government, through the Solicitor-General for Scotland, has admitted the facts, and there is no purpose served now in confusing either English or Scottish Members about the three-eighths, and the two-eighths, and the one-fourth, and so on. The naked fact is this, that under this Bill as it stands now, the landlords of
Scotland are going to get a present of £300,000 per annum out of the £480,000 which the Government allege that they are giving to the relief of agriculture. That is the cold fact of the matter. The farmers, the agricultural occupiers, who up to now have thought they were going to get some relief, are going to get relief to their local rates to the extent of only £180,000 out of the £480,000 that the general taxpayer is finding. The landowner gets £300,000 per annum, which is just the amount of money you have taken away from the education of the children—£300,000 as a gift to the landowner, and only £180,000 to agriculture. I do not suppose that on the Report stage it would be in order to trace where that £180,000 will ultimately go, but I think the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) gave a hint as to where he thought it would go, and I agree with him that the £180,000 will sooner or later go into rent.
There is no doubt whatever about it. It may go indirectly. It may be that the landowner will now say to the farmer, "You are relieved of your rates to the extent of £180,000; you will therefore undertake the repairs to the farmsteading yourself." It may be done indirectly, but when the lease runs out and new arrangements come to be made, undoubtedly all past experience teaches us that the £180,000 that you are giving nominally to the agricultural occupier will find its way into rent. But what justification have you for giving £300,000 directly to the landowner—£300,000 per annum to the most useless social class in the country? It was argued by the Solicitor-General for Scotland in the Standing Committee that the landowner provided capital. I agree that he drains the land sometimes; he fences sometimes; he repairs the steadings sometimes; and sometimes he does not, but there is no distinction drawn in this Bill by the Government between the landlord who provides capital and the landlord who does not. All have to come into the bank. It is: "So long as this Government last, come with open hands, for the treasure is here. Come and take your share of it. Come where the booty is easily accessible so long as a Conservative Government are in power." If you had a Scots National Parliament, the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health, the
two Scottish representatives now on the Government Bench, would not dare to go to a Scottish National Assembly with a proposal such as this. They do not dare take this proposal to a Scottish Grand Committee of this House. They tack this surreptitiously on to an English Bill—because it is an English Bill—in the sure and certain knowledge that if they did not do that they would never get it through a Scottish Grand Committee.
I cannot understand whether the deer forest proprietor is to share in this swag. [An HON MEMBER: "Of course he is."] Well, the Solicitor-General for Scotland says not. If the deer forest proprietor winters sheep on his deer forest, does that deer forest become an agricultural subject? Does it then entitle the deer forest proprietor to come in for a share of the £300,000? If I know the landlords of Scotland—

Mr. J. ERSKINE: You do not!

Mr. JOHNSTON: I know something about them. I did not know there were deer forests in Hanover Square, but if we in Scotland know anything whatever about the landlords of Scotland—and we know something from cruel past experience—we know that this £300,000, some of it immediately, but all of it ultimately, will land into that omnivorous maw. During the sheep boom, land rents rose in Scotland from 600 to 800 per cent. Did they ever go back when the boom was over? The poor peasants of Strathnaver were sent out to unreclaimed land at £2 10s. an acre, and when they reclaimed that land the Sutherland family jumped the rents to £20 an acre. During the Highland clearances, when the land was cleared for sheep, the rent in 32 years jumped from £700—

Major WHELER: Did the hon. Member say the rent jumped to £20 an acre?

Mr. JOHNSTON: No, £2 10s.

Major WHELER: The hon. Member said the rent jumped to £20 an acre.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg pardon; I meant a holding, and if I said per acre, I was wrong. I ought to have said that the peasants who were sent out to the unreclaimed land at Strathnaver paid £2 10s., not per acre, but for their holding, and when they reclaimed this land the rents of their holdings were jumped
by the Sutherland family to £20 per holding. That is a fairly good jump. On the Glengarry estate the land rent was jumped from £700 to £5,000. On the Sutherland estates in 1862 the land rent was £35,000, and in 1882 it was £73,000, but it never went back. During the Napoleonic wars the land rents in Scotland rose, but there is no instance known to us where the land rent ever went back, and there is no evidence whatever that as a result of the remission of rates given by the Act of 1896 the landlords of Scotland were one whit more considerate of their tenantry than they were before. Two hon. Members behind me have referred to the fact that the Government had no warrant from any Committee whatever for these proposals. If they had any warrant, it was not from the Dunedin Committee. I hold the Report of that Committee in my hand, and the summary is even stronger than the words quoted by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer). Page 31 of that Report recommends that the Agricultural Rates Act should remain in force without alteration, but that the exemptions from rates should not be extended. That is quite definite, and that is the report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances of local taxation in Scotland. That Committee has reported, but its Report has not yet been acted upon. We are waiting for the Scottish Office to act on that Report, and to bring in a Measure for redressing inequalities of local taxation in Scotland. This little £300,000 trick is inserted in an English Act.
7.0 P.M.
There is other land beside deer forests about which we should like to have information, and there are other people who are holding up land. For instance, are people who are holding up land for the more or less hypothetical Forth and Clyde Ship Canal to get relief; is that land agricultural land? We ought to have a definite answer to that. We ought to be told exactly what proportion of this relief is going to land in the neighbourhood of the big towns. Up to now we have been told nothing, and we only screwed the information out, as a result of cross-examination in the Committee, that the sum which the owners in Scotland are to receive is £300,000. I should like the Solicitor-General for Scotland
or the Under-Secretary to come up to Scotland and attempt to justify that policy in any constituency. They cannot do it, though, as an hon. Member says, we will pay their fare.
There is simply no public opinion whatever in Scotland in favour of this thing. The landowners have not had the fairness to come out and argue in favour of it. All that has been done has been that a surreptitious dive has been made at the national Treasury. If there is any independence of spirit, or any real desire in this House to safeguard the national Treasury, then the Clause as it stands will not be approved, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfar will be accepted. It is impossible, on the Report stage, to say all that one would care to say about the demerits of this particular Clause, but I should like to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland why it is that this proposal has never been publicly made in Scotland; why no attempt has been made to justify it by any Member of the Government at any public meeting; why the newspapers have been silent about it; and why we can only wring out the information about what I would call class graft in the Committee room upstairs? No defence whatever has been attempted in public of this action, which I regard as the most barefaced dive at the public funds that I have seen in my day or generation.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: I feel rather an interloper in entering the field when a Scottish Debate is in progress. There are, however, one or two points of general interest, and we English Members are interested in this matter because this £300,000, which is going to the Scottish landowner, is coming from the British taxpayer, and our duty, as guardians of the public purse, is to see it does not go to the wrong quarter. There are two possible reasons why this relief should be given to the Scottish landlords. One is, that where he is himself the owner and occupier, as occupier he requires relief. The other reason is, that his rent roll has decreased very much, while his expenses have been increased. I have taken out the figures of rent rolls for England and Scotland since 1895, and I find that the rentals in England of agricultural land have fallen by 10 per cent. between 1895 and 1915. The figures for Scotland show that they have fallen in exactly the same
proportion—10 per cent.—so that, if you put the reason for relief on the ground of a fall in rental, then the English landlord has exactly the same claim to consideration as the Scottish landlord.
I tried to get the figures for the owner-occupier, but I could not get them for Scotland. In England, as we all know, the owner-occupying area rose from 2,750,000 acres to 5,000,000 acres, out of 26,000,000 acres, between 1914 and 1921. This year, in the last Return, it had fallen by about 1,250,000 acres, to 3,750,000 acres, out of 26,000,000 acres. Therefore the area held by the owner-occupier in England is between one-seventh and one-eighth. If we take the same percentage for Scotland, the problem of the owner-occupier is comparatively a small one, and in order to give the relief required to the owner-occupier, you are going to give six-sevenths of the relief to the landlord. It would seem a much easier proposition to give your relief to the owner-occupier and to exclude the landlord. There is no reason why it should not be given to the owner-occupier, if it be desirable, but I am quite certain that the House, on Second Reading, had no idea at all that anything up to £320,000 per annum—not a lump sum—was to be given to the Scottish landowners out of public funds, and, as an English Member, I desire to protest most strongly against that being done.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am moved to intervene in the Debate, not because I have any knowledge, and still less because. I have any interests in this matter. I have no interests, either as a landlord or as an occupier, but I cannot listen to the arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite, some of which I am certain are fallacious, without making some protest. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Simpson) spoke of the great increase of the owner-occupier in England, and jumped to the conclusion that the owner-occupier had increased in a similar proportion in Scotland.

Mr. SIMPSON: I do not think I said that. I said the only figures I could give were the English figures, and that if one could accept that proportion for Scotland, the result would be so and so.

Sir H. CRAIK: Even if the increase of owner-occupiers were the same in Scotland, the hon. Member has quite left out
of account the fact that an enormous amount of land in Scotland is held by smallholders and crofters, where the burden on the owners is quite beyond, anything that is known in England at all. I myself have known in the olden days many instances of landlords who have been very greatly overburdened. The burden of education is tremendous, and it falls, nominally, half on the occupier and half on the owner, but in the case of the crofters it falls entirely on the owners, because the crofters do not pay anything. So much was this so that I remember on one occasion that a landlord, the owner of one of the islands, came to me and said, "I should be only too delighted to help you in carrying on this education work and to give up my property altogether if you would take the burden of it off my back." That is not a fable; it is a fact. I know of other persons I could mention, both men and women, landed proprietors, whose burdens are unbearable. There is Lady Gordon-Cathcart who, from her island property, draws no rental whatever, and who, if she were not the owner of a large city property in Edinburgh, could not carry on. Some hon. Members think you would get a better economic system if you abolished the landlord altogether. Where would the burden of the rates in those districts then fall? [HON. MEMBERS: "On land values!"] It is utterly impossible for the crofters to bear them. The burden on the landlord is incredible, and, after all, the idea of an agricultural agreement between the landlord and the tenant has been scoffed at by the Mover of the Amendment, by the Seconder, and by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). They really think there is no such thing as a common interest between the landlord and the tenant.
One landlord told me that he knew he had not been able, as a landlord, to carry out his proper duty in regard to repairs, not because he was not willing to do so, but absolutely because he had not got the money. He said, "I cannot find the money to carry out the repairs, which I know I ought to do. If I get the relief under this Bill, I shall feel it my duty to devote at least a large part of it to proper repairs." Is it not likely that the ordinary law of supply and demand will operate here? If a landlord is known not to carry out his repairs, after this
relief, then his tenants will go away and find another landlord. There is much more competition for tenants than there is for landlords, and if a landlord who has hitherto, by reason or the heavy burdens which have lain on his estate, been unable to carry out the repairs which, from time immemorial have fallen on the landlord, now that he gets this relief, does not carry out his duty, I am quite sure that a neighbouring landlord, who does his duty, will carry off his tenants. If the landlord and the farmer tenant in the long run share the benefits which accrue to one another, the law of supply and demand will act. It is not fair that hon. Members opposite should shut their eyes to the fact that there is and there has been for some years a burden of unusually heavy loss falling on the owners of these vast, thinly populated districts where the profits of farming are very small indeed, and where the landlord has been obliged to put his hand into both pockets to carry out what is necessary. I have no interest personally in this matter. I never had an acre of land, but I have watched the economic position as much as I could do, and I am perfectly certain that those who look at the matter fair-mindedly will be bound to realise that landlords of recent times have had very severe pressure.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who has been for so long a Scottish Member, has confessed that as an Englishman he has found it hard to understand the intricacies of Scottish rating. I have had to give some little study to this matter and I know that there are certain parts of our rating system not easy to understand, and that are certainly hard to explain in a clear manner to any audience, however keen and quick-witted. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Simpson), speaking as an English Member, asked me by what right was this money going to Scottish landowners when none was given to English? That is a highly illuminating observation and shows the difference that, in my view, has vitiated all the discussion this afternoon, for in England all the rates are paid by the occupier, while in Scotland they are paid, half by the owner and half by the occupier. If you do not keep that conseideration closely in view while dealing with this matter, I do not think you are
in a position to reach a very satisfactory conclusion. The grant has been referred to as a class grant. It is stated that silence has been maintained in Scotland with regard to the proposals of the Bill. My noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland made a speech on the matter in Edinburgh. The hon. Member has surely forgotten that? He also said that the Scottish Press had been silent in the matter. I was fortunate enough to read a very illuminating article in the "Glasgow Herald," which dealt with a letter that my hon. Friend had written to that paper, and the article pointed out in a very clear way how unfair it was to state that two-thirds of the money of the new grant, or the new fund, was given to the landowners without keeping in view also that under the law existing till now the owner got no relief at all, and the occupier only paid rates on three-eighths of his rateable basis. Subsequently also in the "Scotsman" I read another article, so that, so far from the Scottish Press having been silent on a question which is, I think, of some benefit to the agricultural interest of Scotland, the matter has been closely canvassed.
Under the law as it now stands the agricultural owner pays rates on the full amount of his valuation, and the agricultural occupier pays only on three-eighths. What our proposals in this Bill amount to are that in future the landowner is to pay on three-quarters, and that the occupier is to have his rateable basis reduced from three-eighths to two-eighths. In order to do this more money is required. The final result will be that the owner only gets relief on a quarter and the occupier on three-quarters. That is the final result, that the occupiers of Scotland, the farmers of Scotland, are in a better position than the agricultural occupier in England. In England the occupier gets a rebate of three-quarters of his rates on land only; in Scotland he gets the relief on the three-quarter basis both on the land and the buildings. I desire to make these points clear.
It is perfectly idle to criticise the Bill on the ground of the new grant without keeping in view the position of the law at the present moment, otherwise the criticism is not, in my view, fair. It seems to be the view of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer) that while
the rates are paid half by the owner and half by the occupier that the owner's rates do not affect the agricultural industry at all. Therefore, it seems to me that the English system of rating the occupiers is a profound mistake. If all the rates in England could be shifted from the occupier to the owner the agricultural industry would be free from all burden whatsoever. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, that would be the result as some hon. Members conceive it, but surely it is absurd to contend that rates imposed on the owners of agricultural lands do not affect the agricultural industry, and are not a burden on it. It has been said that there is no interest of or partnership between the landowner and the tenant, but it seems to be obvious that there is. The landowner provides the buildings, he has to do the drainage, and the fencing. If his means are straitened, then that cannot be adequately done, and the whole industry of agriculture suffers. The landlord has to pay his rates out of the rents which he receives.
References have been made this afternoon on several occasions to the reports of the Dunedin Committee. They point out very clearly the general effect of the increase of rates in Scotland. Then they go on to say:
Besides what may be termed the general pressure which affects all occupiers as well as owners, evidenced by such figures, it may not be amiss to show how this increase presses on particular classes of owners. In the appendix will be found a table showing the effect on owners of agricultural estates in various counties in Scotland. As the rise in the rates there shown synchronises with the rise in the public burdens also shown in the table, and with the rise in imperial taxation, the increased cost of upkeep, and the higher rate of interest on mortgages, against all of which there could be no increase of return from lands under lease, it is evident that the margin left on an agricultural estate is in most cases very small indeed, and that the great increase in rates presses very hardly on that margin.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: What recommendation did they make?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: They recommended that the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, be continued. That is their view, but it was quite out of their purview to consider any relief of the owners' rates, as that would involve an additional charge upon the Exchequer. If any hon. Member cares to
look at the terms of that Committee he will see that they are not entitled to make a suggestion which would involve a grant from the Exchequer. As regards the Royal Commission of 1902, it is true they do not recommend that there should be any reduction in the rating basis as regards owners. It was impressed upon them that the agricultural policy of the Agricultural Rates Acts of 1896 was a mistaken policy. They, however, expressed the view that considering relatively how heavy were the burdens on agricultural land as against other rateable properties that the Act of 1896 should be continued. There was a passage quoted by my hon. Friend which did not propose that the relief should be extended to the owners, but that was more in the nature of an obiter dictum in reference to the view pressed upon them that the whole system of the relif of agricultural rats should be abandoned.

Mr. MILLAR: Were they not considering whether or not there should be any alteration in connection with agricultural rating?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The question they were really considering was whether or not the policy of the 1806 Act should be continued, and, in view of the very heavy burdens which were imposed by the rates on the industry of agriculture, they unhesitatingly declared themselves in favour of the continuance of the policy of the Act. But, they added,
They did not propose any further extension.
As to the Committee of 1911, it is known that all they were appointed to do was to inquire into the changes which had taken place in Imperial and local taxation.
Let me now come to the question of the owner-occupier. It must be obvious to anyone, who has lived in Scotland of recent years, that there has been an immense amount of selling, and large tracts of land have been sold. The system of the great estate had many merits, was well carried on, and so enabled Scottish agriculture, as many hon. Members are well aware, to become better probably, I will not say than England, but better a great deal than the agricultural systems in many other countries in the world. That system has been largely replaced by a system of owner-occupier. In the
Scottish newspapers we see reports of the sales of estates, purchased in many cases by the occupiers. My hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire does not propose to give the owner occupier qua owner any relief at all. He proposes that the owner occupier should as regards these rates which he pays as occupier be in the same position as we put in our Bill exactly, that he should pay on a one-fourth basis, but as we know, in Scotland, the rates fall half on the owner and half on the occupier. The owner occupier qua owner has to pay the full rates! Why? Do my fellow Scottish Members desire that the owner occupier in Scotland should be in a position substantially worse than the owner occupier in England and only get half the relief given in England? My hon. Friend's position is that the rates imposed on agricultural owners do not affect the industry at all. Let him go and say that to the owner occupier. Let him tell that to the man who has to keep his buildings in order and look after his draining and fencing. Let him go and say to such a man: "It is right we are going to give you relief to the extent of three-quarters on those rates you pay as occupier; it is true that you will have to pay full rates as owner" One has only got to look at the matter in that light and it will be seen that the rates imposed on the owner, whether it be on the occupying owner or the other owner, do fall on the industry, and if the landlord has no money, as shown by the statistics of many of these estates, to really keep the land up properly, then the industry of agriculture suffers. That can be tested very clearly by the position of the owner occupier.

Mr. SIMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the area of the owner occupiers?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I cannot give the area, but the last figures I have as to the numbers show that there were 7,800, an increase of a couple of thousand since 1914.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can you tell us the acreage?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am afraid I cannot. The purchase by owner occupiers is going on every day in Scotland, and if any class of the community is deserving of en-
couragement it is the owner occupier. What has been the strength of France? It is because she has such a large number of owner occupiers. In our own country, with its immense urban population, we want to encourage the owner occupier to acquire the land and to settle on the land. Representing as I do the Scottish Office, I do not see why my hon. Friend should propose an Amendment which has the effect of allowing to the owner occupier only half the relief that his brother owner occupier in England gets. I am aware that any proposal of this kind as regards Scotland lends itself to an attack that the English proposals are not exposed to, but the reason is the difference in the Scottish rating system, a system which was favourably reported upon by the Dunedin Committee. If you are going to give Scottish agriculture the same amount of relief as you are going to give English agriculture as afforded by this Bill, then you must relieve the people who are paying agricultural rates, otherwise Scottish agriculture will not be receiving the same treatment as English agriculture, and it is obvious that the proportion of rates to be borne by the agricultural industry in Scotland, as in England, has been, and is, very excessive in proportion to their ability to pay. That is stated in the Report of the Dunedin Committee, and also in the Report of the Commission of 1902.
Let me take another point. A great fuss has been made of the fact that owing to our Scottish rating system of half-owner and half-occupier relief should be given in this way. What about all the grants given in Scotland such as public health grants, police grants and others. These go to relieve the ratepayers. Take for example the police grant. Each grant given by the Exchequer benefits owners as well as occupiers. The system is that the owner pays half and the occupier pays half. Every public health grant, and every grant for roads or police allows every ratepayer to benefit just in the same way as this grant benefits owners in Scotland. In Scotland the police rate is raised in burghs from the occupiers and therefore the grant in regard to the police in relief of the rates is an advantage to the occupiers in the burghs. In the counties it so happens that fully 60 per cent. of the police rates is paid by the owners as ratepayers share in that. You cannot give any relief towards rates in
Scotland without some of the relief going to the owners who are ratepayers. In looking at the report of the Dunedin Committee I find that in regard to the incidence of rating they declare that they found the matter very obscure, and after going thoroughly into the matter they say that they are unable to form any definite opinion. There is no question more difficult of ascertainment than the final incidence of an increase in a rate, or to find out where the benefit really goes when relief is given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer) proposes to deal with finis matter in a different way. He proposes to put the occupier in the same position as he is under this Bill, and to use the rest of the money for filling up the shortage created by the operation of the 1896 Act. The hon. Member explains that the grant in 1896 was fixed on the basis of the rates in that year, and that they have steadily increased, so that now there is a large shortage. My hon. Friend says that he will have two-thirds of the grant available to use for this purposes, and he proposes to use this balance to fill up the shortage. He can do that to the extent of 60 per cent. Take an average county with 64 per cent. of agricultural valuation. He now says that money is being put into the pockets of the owners, but he seeks to use this money in a way which will accrue to the benefit of the owners. The owners get some 60 per cent. of the money under his suggested proposals and the agricultural owner will get 40 per cent.

Mr. FALCONER: My point was that the owners would share along with the other ratepayers in the relief that would be got from the Act of 1906. I have no against the landlords, and I want them to get their share.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am trying to show that, under the hon. Member's scheme, relief to the extent of 60 per cent. will go to the owner. I think I have gone over most of the points that have been raised in the speeches, and I ask hon. Members to dismiss prejudice from their minds, and keep firmly in view the difference between the rating systems in Scotland and England, and in doing that, to realise the heavy burden borne by agriculture according to its ability to pay. I ask my
Scottish colleagues, in view of these facts, not to support a proposal which would put the agricultural industry in Scotland in a worse position than in England.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Solicitor-General for Scotland has not in my opinion met the arguments which have been put before the House. The statement that was made, and the position put forward, was that this question differs entirely from the English question; that it means altering Scottish laws and in fact an alteration in the Scottish legal system. Instead of meeting that argument and dealing with it before the Scottish Grand Committee the Solicitor-General brings it before the Committee upstairs on an English Bill.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I think my hon. Friend has had this point explained to him before. The Parish Budget is made out at the end of this month; therefore it is necessary that this Bill should be passed into law before that date.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Solicitor-General must realise as a Scottish Member and a Scottish Law Officer the difficulties of this problem, and he must know that any Bill of a controversial character like this should have been sent before the Scottish Grand Committee. He must realise that a question of this kind is a strongly controversial part of the Bill, and it ought to have gone before a Scottish Grand Committee. This matter of relieving agriculture has been in the mind of the Government for some time, and the usual excuse we get is that time is so short that we must get this Bill through by a particular date, otherwise it cannot be made operative. It is about time that sort of thing was stopped by this Government, and it is time they gave hon. Members an opportunity of considering such Bills properly, and particularly Scottish Bills.
Here is a Bill covering six and a half pages. Three of those pages are taken up with Scottish matters and three pages make alterations in already existing Scottish Acts of Parliament. You now propose to alter those Acts in an English Bill when they are Acts which went before the Scottish Grand Committee. You are now asking a Committee consisting mainly of English Members to vote upon questions which are purely Scottish. This is
not treating Scotland fairly, and the Solicitor-General and the Prime Minister know quite well the reason why they did not send this Measure before the Scottish Grand Committee. Why was the reason not given to this House? The real reason is that such proposals as are contained in the section of this Bill referring to Scotland would never have got through a Scottish Grand Committee in this House. That is the real reason why these Clauses have not been sent before a Scottish Grand Committee to be discussed. This intricate system of Scottish rating the Solicitor-General admits cannot be understood by English Members, and yet he sends a question of Scottish rating before a Committee the majority of which is composed of English Members.
The Solicitor-General tells us that the owner-occupiers have increased very largely recently, and he gave us the figures, but those figures are of no use without the acreage, because they really convey no information. It is simply intimating to the House that so many more people have acquired land, and no statement is made as to the amount of land acquired by these people. We do not know whether each of these individuals has bought half an acre, one acre, 20 acres, 200 acres or 300 acres, and until we get the figures of the acreage that has changed hands together with the increased number of people who have become owner-occupiers, the figures which the Solicitor-General has given us are of no use whatever. Regarding the quotation he gave from the Report of the Dunedin Committee, he thought he had scored a point against hon. Members who had previously quoted that Report, but he forgot the recommendation of that Committee. In spite of what was said in the text of their Report, when they weighed up the pros and cons of the whole situation, they recommended no alteration.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: They could not do otherwise; it was outside their scope.

Mr. MACLEAN: That makes our case all the stronger. If this involved an Exchequer grant, and was outside the scope remitted to the Dunedin Committee, then the Government, in bringing this in, is anticipating that which they themselves announced in the Speech from the Throne. They have broken their
pledge, and they are bringing in an alteration in rating that is going to be applicable only to one part of the country, whereas their suggested method was the introduction of a Measure which was to apply to the whole country. They have broken away, in fact, from the programme which they outlined to this House at the beginning of the Session. It is quite true that the question of Imperial grants and Exchequer grants was outside the scope of the Committee. But is it not also outside the scope, to a certain extent, of this Government at the present moment.
Members of this House seated on the benches behind the Solicitor-General for Scotland have time and again denounced subsidies. When it was a case of a subsidy to a miner or a housebuilder they denounced it; when it was a case of a subsidy to this or that form of industry they denounced it; but to-night we find them rallying behind the Solicitor-General for Scotland and voting for a subsidy not because it is going to benefit agricultural labourers, not because it is going to give them the advantage of higher wages or better living accommodation, but because it means giving £300,000 to their own friends. Subsidies are bad when it is a question of handing them to workmen. In such circumstances they are evil, but they are all right when it means handing the money over to your friends, and that is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite are more concerned about to-day. They are not troubling about fostering agriculture. The Conservative party has always been a landlords' party; it has always played up the interests of the landlord as against the interests of those in the towns, and this particular Section of the Bill which we are now discussing is just another indication of the situation as far as the Government are concerned. They think we have got back to pre-War conditions when those who are in power can take advantage of their power to add to their possessions by robbing—because, after all, it is robbing—the people of this country for the benefit of the very small number of owners in Scotland at the present time. Indeed, they are not all in Scotland; some of them are absentee landlords in London, who spend only two months in a year on their Scottish estates. The and learned Gentleman has made some suggestion with regard to crofters. I
want to know if the owners of land, upon which crofts are situated are to participate in this grant.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I pointed out in Committee upstairs that the estates were mixed and only in part crofts. They are of a varied character. In the definition Clause of the Act of 1896 it is stated that the Act does not apply to land used exclusively or mainly for sport.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is beside my question; I am asking if the landowners who have crofts on their estates are to participate in this grant. Suppose, for instance, an estate is composed half of crofts and half of farms. Is the owner of that land to receive a concession upon the whole of the rateable value of this land, or only on that part which is divided up into farms? Is that portion which is devoted to crofts to be exempted from the provisions of this Bill? If any portion of the land is let out in crofts is that portion to be exempted?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I have explained; it is not.

Mr. MACLEAN: The owner of the land does nothing to improve the crofts; he does not fence or drain them; he does absolutely nothing to improve the land, and yet you are allowing him to participate in the benefits of this particular concession. You are making him a gift of money when he is doing absolutely nothing to improve agriculture or to help the work that is being done on the crofts. Hon. Members opposite object, possibly, to the strong terms we use when we describe this process as downright robbery. I say it is a sheer robbery of the people of this country; it cannot be described in any other terms. I am surprised that so soon after the establishment of a Conservative Government, the Government should show its hand so openly. It has so long camouflaged its purposes that one cannot help being surprised when it so clearly shows its hand. It seems to me that the Conservative, like the leopard, never changes his spots. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has no spots."] Then he is black all over, I suppose. I am glad to have that admission. I protest, as a Scottish Member, against, this robbing of the people of the country in the interest of a class. This is sheer
class legislation. I suppose one cannot expect anything but class legislation from a Conservative Government. Hon. Members opposite complain about our preaching class hatred and class war. [An HON. MEMBER: "So you do."]

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid controversy will develop should the hon. Member continue on this line.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am protesting against this Bill as a piece of class legislation and that probably led to an interruption by the hon. Member opposite. I am not concerned about that interruption; we can answer it on platforms outside, and dispose of it quite as readily as we would if the rules of Debate permitted us to deal with it here. We protest as Scottish Members against the manner in which this Bill is being brought in, and against the way in which what are conceived to be the constitutional rights of Scotland have been ignored. We protest against a Bill of this nature having been sent to a Committee composed mainly of Englishmen instead of to the Scottish Grand Committee. Our second point of objection is to the giving away of public money to people who do not deserve it or require it, the giving it away in a manner which amounts purely to a robbery of public funds.

Mr. HARDIE: While the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) was speaking he was interrupted by the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. J. Erskine) who suggested that my hon. Friend had perhaps never seen a deer forest. Surely the hon. Member for Stirling, coming from the district he does, is much more likely to have an understanding of what a deer forest really is than the hon. Member for St. George's. Let me refer to one illustration which will show why we so strongly oppose money being provided for people who have crushed agriculture in Scotland. Let me take the district of Loch Aline and the great Black and White Glens which used to be cultivated and to send their produce annually to the Finnary Mill to be ground. In those days hundreds of men, women and children were leading clean, healthy lives; to-day we are asked by this Measure to give public money to the owner of those lands, to the man who, the moment he became the owner, shut up both the Black and White
Glens and crushed these particular people out into the industrial centres, and also closed down the mill. To-day what only a few years ago was the home of hundreds of people is closed up. I am surprised that any man claiming to be a Scotsman should come forward and seek to support a system whereby men who are destroying agriculture and are destroying the homes of the people are to be given a grant of public money. In the rivers Aline and Rannich which falls into Loch Aline anyone standing on the bridges can see the salmon fighting their way up stream, and yet the inhabitants of that district are compelled to eat tinned salmon which has been brought 4,500 miles across the sea because a Tory Government allows this man the right to deny to the local inhabitants the use of Nature's plentiful products, and to send the inhabitants themselves from their healthy lives and happy homes into industrial centres.
8.0 P.M.
This Clause is an absolute disgrace to the whole Bill. It is a disgrace to think land, from which so much has been wrested by the application of labour, should be closed down in order to become the haunts of a few deer. It is interesting to note that the man who is responsible for the closing of the Black and White Glens—Mr. Craig Sellars—is the son of the man who was responsible for the Sutherlandshire clearances. It seems to run in the blood with them to lay waste all this productive land and these productive streams, in order that they may have a few deer for people like the hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, to shoot at during one or two months in the year. There is a Bill before this House for the humane slaughter of animals. I think that ought to be applied to some of the shots that go up to the North. I have often heard it said in this House in a jocular way that we are trying to blow out somebody's brains. You would need to be a good shot to blow out their brains.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting very far away from the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, that is too far away, but I was trying to reply to the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster. It is generally the case that by the time
you get in in this Debate, those who have preceded you have disappeared. While they are dining and whining, the people who have been thrust away from these beautiful glens are suffering. Yet there are people in Scotland who would support them, and I feel that shooting is too kind a thing.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am afraid I do not possess the eloquence and power of my hon. Friends who have spoken, but I want to say at once that I agree with them in the very emphatic protest they have made against this Clause. I trust they will not consider me discourteous if I turn to another side of the problem, which was raised by the Solicitor-General. The most remarkable argument he used in defence of this Clause was when he said that it was like the system of percentage grants now in operation, as between the National Exchequer, on the one side, and Scotland on the other, where you get a 50–50 allocation, and the advantage of any deduction or increase in that allowance goes to proprietors and to tenants. I am astonished that the learned Solicitor-General should have used an argument of that kind, because in recent times that problem has been under consideration of a Committee of the Treasury. I cannot indicate what view will be taken, but I can make the statement with confidence at the present time that the Committee, considering the whole problem of percentage grants from this country, would differ at once and completely from the view of the Solicitor-General. There is no comparison whatever between the police and other percentage grants in this country and the proposal he is now defending.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. GRAHAM: There is no comparison whatever between the effect of the percentage grants and the effect of the proposal now being made to the House. The whole effect of this proposal is to confer an advantage in rating on a certain limited section of the community. I very much hope that that argument will not be employed. I venture to say that the Percentage Grants Committee itself would be the very first to denounce this proposal, and it has in effect in the proceedings which have taken place up to the present time associated itself with the Report of
the Dunedin Committee and other bodies in urging strongly that there should be no interference with the allocation of rates in Scotland, and that no other special remission should be granted until the whole position has been reconsidered. The only effect of the Government's proposal in this connection is further to complicate an already complicated system.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I think this Bill is really a step forward towards rating reform in Scotland.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am sorry to differ entirely from the learned Solicitor-General. That is not the report of the Dunedin Committee and it is not the view of the Percentage Grants Committee. They have drawn attention to the fact that every fresh device introduced, whether for equalisation or anything else, is to be avoided until we have considered the problem as a whole. We are supporting on this side of the House an Amendment which in effect would place this advantage more particularly upon the occupier rather than upon the owner of agricultural land. I daresay I speak for all my colleagues and many other Members when I say that we are opposed to this proposal altogether. We regard this as a thoroughly unsound and dangerous Bill, but if the device is to be introduced let us try to be logical to this extent that the advantage is to lie where in existing circumstances, according to current argument, it is most required. The learned Solicitor-General has told us that certain sections of the Scottish landowners require this assistance. There is one section of Scottish landowner with whom I daresay many of my colleagues on these benches would probably have some sympathy. I refer to those owners who have consistently tried to do their duty by their estates and refrained from charging exorbitant rents, and who at the end of the day have found themselves in substantial difficulties. I have always admitted that these people were entitled to consideration, but I am afraid they are a minority in Scotland to-day, and there are two other classes of proprietors on whom our sympathy would be absolutely wasted. I refer first to that class of proprietor whose estates are burdened for family and other reasons, sometimes because of the squandering of
family resources which I venture to suggest it is no part of the business of the taxpayers of this country to make good. There is another class of owner who has recently entered into Scotland on the basis of great wealth made in industrial pursuits or otherwise elsewhere. Does anyone suggest that the two classes I have mentioned are entitled to relief which may amount to a substantial proportion of this £300,000 at the expense of other classes of the ratepayers and taxpayers? I do not think a proposal of that kind could be defended for one moment.
I take frankly the view that we are not entitled, even as regards the occupiers of agricultural land in Scotland or England at the present day, to make any rate concession at all. At the present time we do not know the actual position of the farming community in this country, because we have not Schedule D returns showing the actual profits, but only one time the annual valuation for taxation purposes is in existence. It is a curious thing that although they enjoy the right to fill up Schedule D and show their actual profits, they have not, except in a small minority of cases, elected to do so. Surely it is absolutely wrong to give any money, I do not care what the sum may be, to people who have notoriously done well during the War, whose position you do not know in the absence of that return and whose position you have not sought to ascertain before introducing this legislation which you are asking the House to pass.

Mr. SHINWELL: I rise only for the purpose of dealing with one of the arguments which the learned Solicitor-General indulged in. He attempted to justify this subsidy to the landowners of Scotland on the ground that the agricultural industry was in a very bad state and that consequently the landowners, themselves were suffering. I cannot understand why, if such be the case, tenants of agricultural holdings should be so anxious to become owner-occupiers. He told us in his speech, in attempting to defend the proposals of the Government, that the benefits would be largely derived by owner-occupiers, of whom there are a considerable number, a number which was being added to daily, as he understood was the case from the reports from the Scottish Press. If tenants of agricultural holdings were anxious to become owners, it was obvious
that the owners' position would not be quite so bad as he attempted to make out. On the other hand, if there is a very large transference of agricultural holdings in Scotland so as to convert the tenant into an owner, then the agriculturists themselves cannot have suffered very severely, because otherwise they would not have been able to effect Such a transfer of property. I do ask the Solicitor-General to try and square these somewhat conflicting points of view. Unless he does so, there is very grave reason for doubting the efficacy, and, indeed, the wisdom, of the Government's proposal. There is another point which, I think, requires explanation before this proposal should be definitely accepted by the House, and that is with regard to the position of deer forests. As I understand it, the owners of deer forests will not benefit from this proposal unless it can be shown that those deer forests can come within the category of agricultural holdings. The question I put to the Solicitor-General is, When does a deer forest become an agricultural holding? Does it become an agricultural holding when a few sheep are placed upon it, and, if so, are those few sheep placed upon it to transfer it, for the purposes of the Government's proposals, into an agricultural holding, in order to derive the benefits with which the Government seek to endow such property in Scotland?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: If the hon. Member will look at the definition Section of the Act of 1896, he will find that any question that may arise as to whether lands and heritages fall within the category of agricultural lands shall be determined by the Sheriff.

Mr. SHINWELL: I think that that is likely to complicate the matter still further. In the first place, we are to have litigation, that is to say, we are to have a reference to a Court of law as to whether a deer forest is merely a deer forest for the purposes of stalking deer, or is an agricultural holding; and, in the second place, there are, so far as I know, no principles laid down in the Bill which will enable the Sheriff to determine the course he shall take. It is far from satisfactory in the absence of a clear definition. My final point is this: The Solicitor-General sought to justify this subsidy on
the ground that there was severe agricultural depression to which the owners had been subject for some years. We have had the question raised in this House more than once of the position of the necessitous areas both in England and in Scotland, and also the question of the severe industrial depression in the industrial areas both of England and Scotland. If there is justification for the granting of a subsidy such as this to agriculture and to the owners of landed property in Scotland, then there is similar justification for a similar subsidy to business men and owners of industrial and other property in Scotland, but I do not know that the Government propose to extend this principle any further.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That would be proper to the Third Reading, but at the present we must assume that there is to be a subsidy to agriculture, and the question is whether the owner should participate in that, or only the tenant.

Mr. SHINWELL: I accept your ruling, Sir, but, since arguments have been adduced by the Solicitor-General which bear on this point, one cannot do otherwise than traverse the ground which he has covered. I will, however, content myself by pointing out that, if the principle is applied in the one case, it might very justly be applied all round, and, since there is no proposal of that kind, so far as I know, emanating from the Government, we are entitled to oppose this particular proposal. May I point out that what the Government are proposing to do is to confer an undoubted benefit of a very wide and liberal kind on some of their immediate and intimate friends? There is a very large and, I believe, wealthy landowner in my own constituency, who sits in another place and is a Member of the Government. I think he occupies the honourable post of Civil Lord of the Admiralty. He has in his possession something like 30,000 acres, and the Government are proposing here to hand out benefits to their own friends. Surely, it is a travesty of constitutionalism and a blot on stable government and right thinking in political life that the Government should hand out benefits of this kind to those who are entitled to sit on their own benches. I would remind the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secre-
tary to the Scottish Board of Health, who sits beside him, and who has, I believe, a very great knowledge of agriculture in Scotland, that in the West Lothian constituency, which is very largely an agricultural constituency, while the farmers are entitled to some consideration—as to whether this is the proper consideration or not is another matter—the landowners in that constituency, of which the Noble Lord whom I have mentioned is one of the chief and most influential, and, I believe, most prosperous, are not entitled to any consideration whatever. For these reasons, and particularly because of the paucity of argument contained in the speech of the Solicitor-General—a speech which, I hope he will forgive me for saying, was, perhaps, one of the lamest from the point of view of justification that I have ever listened to in this House or elsewhere—because of the complete absence of argument of a sound, valid, and logical character, we are entitled to ask the Government to give us, at least, a more satisfactory explanation of the course they propose to take than has hitherto been presented to the House.

Mr. MacLAREN: I want to analyse some of the arguments that have been used by the Solicitor-General. He seemed to hinge his case a great deal upon the owner occupier, and then he went on to advance the argument that rates upon the occupier fell upon him to the detriment of the industry itself. When he put it in that way, Members on this side said that they did not think so. If there is an occupier or an owner of land using the land, and the rate should fall on the owner or occupier in proportion to the uses to which they put the land, then, undoubtedly, such rates or taxes are a sort of detrimental brake on the progress and development of agriculture; but we have owners in this country, as we have in Scotland, and more especially in Scotland, who are of no service to agriculture at all, and supposing that all the rates and taxes fell upon what they get out of the land, it would be in no way detrimental to the development of agriculture. It was for that reason that we interjected, when the Solicitor-General was using this argument, that, even though the rates were heavy and fell upon the owner of the land, it would not, in the case to which I am referring, namely,
that of the owner who contributes nothing to agriculture, act to the detriment of the progress of agriculture at all.
The Solicitor-General, however, became a little subtle in his arguments about the owner-occupier. He comes from Scotland, where subtlety is synonymous with learning, and he used the argument that the owner-occupier would be entitled to a reduction in his rates as an owner, and a reduction in his rates as a user of the soil. Whenever a protest has been made during the Debate against the advantages which are given to the owner, there has been this constant introduction into the Debate of the owner-occupier. I take it an owner-occupier is a man who is occupying the land for use, and I would advocate that that man should be freed from rates entirely. I am not saying that the site value should be free from rates, but that every encouragement should be given to him as the user of the land by reducing his rates. But as an owner-occupier he is in the position of receiver of the ground rent, and to that extent he has no more right to claim an exemption from the rates levied upon that part of the wealth which he appropriates as the owner of land than has his large comrade who owns vast estates. We are told we must not differentiate because really if we do and we tend to throw the burden of the rate on the owner, agriculture would be reduced to a sort of failure.
Perhaps the most illuminating speech which has been made on this Amendment came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). When I moved the rejection of the Bill I stated that any advantage from reduced rates would go ultimately to the owners of the land in rent, and any levying of rates would tend to lower the rents which the landowner would receive. The Minister said that was a figment of my imagination, and there was no reality behind it. Yet the Member for the Scottish Universities has told us in plain unvarnished language that it was ultimately the owner who paid the rates, and that any rates levied would fall ultimately upon the rent he received, and if the rates were high there would come a time, and he gave an illustration to show it, when the owner of land would be able to do nothing at all because he received no rent. That, in my opinion, gave away the whole of the case for the Government
in refusing to accept this Amendment. It means, to put it in an extreme way, that even though you concede to the occupier and to the user of land a certain reduction in rates, according to the argument of the hon. Member it would ultimately go in rent to the owners of the land. I have only intervened to pursue these, as I consider, rather interesting incidents in the Debate so far, because they emphasise suspicions in our mind. One cannot take the wide field, restricted as we are to the ruling of the Chair, and bound to keep within the four corners of the Amendment. But this Debate will go on. You will get through the Report stage and it will become as clear as anything can be that this Bill, like many other agricultural Bills which have gone before, where you have tried to get round the difficulty of helping agriculture by reducing rates and giving subsidies here and there, will be as futile as those which have gone before it, because while the argument used is true that the way to encourage industry is to stop rating and taxing it, yet the principle behind this Bill, of relieving farmers and the occupiers, not upon their improvements and agricultural development, but merely in rates in so far as their land is concerned, in my opinion is only strengthening the hands of land monopoly, leading, as it will lead ultimately, to a slowing down of the development of agriculture. This Bill, like the other Bills which have gone before it, and the magnificent display the other day on the valuation—all these things are synonymous with the principles held dear by hon. Members opposite, and it is to be hoped that the public outside will get a clear understanding from all that has gone on to-day in this matter, as well as in other matters appertaining to land during the past week, and that it will not be long until some of us who mean to deal with this thing more radically will be on the other side of the House with power to do it without in any way strengthening the power of special vested interests.

Mr. PRINGLE: I think the present Debate should not yet come to a conclusion as this is the first opportunity the House has had of discussing a very important departure in relation to Imperial subventions to local rates. We
have here a subvention to the agricultural industry which in Scotland for the first time makes a direct gift to the owners of land. On the Report stage of the Financial Resolution of this Bill the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer) and some others with whom I was associated endeavoured to raise this matter and to make clear exactly what was being done to show, if we could, how much was going to the owners and how much to the occupiers. I made a calculation at that time on the basis of the White Paper which the Government laid before the House which showed, as I think I proved, that the owners were going to get twice as much as the occupiers. There was no reply from the Government. There was no attempt on the part of anyone on the other side of the House either to explain or to justify such an extraordinary transaction, and the only reply we got from the Government was that when the Solicitor-General for Scotland attempted to rise, the Minister for Agriculture closured his own colleague. That shows that there was something sinister going on—something that they wanted to hide. They tried to prevent these figures coming out, so that no one would understand them. In the Debate on the Second Reading not the slightest indication was given by any Minister that any such transaction was being carried out. We now know it is true. Attempts were made to deny it in the Press, but finally we have it now admitted from the Treasury Bench that in respect of the relief now being granted to Scotland the owners, who on the basis of the principal Act get nothing at all, who presumably on the theory practised by the Tory Government of 1896 did not deserve anything at all, are now getting twice as much as they ought to have.
We know that the basis is that while under present conditions the tenant pays in respect of three-eighths of his valuation, the owner pays in respect of the whole. That is their respective share of the rates. If this Bill passes the tenant's share will be reduced from three-eighths to two-eighths, while the landlord's valuation will be reduced from the whole to three-quarters, and the result in figures, so far as we can judge from the Estimate, is that of the £480 000 which is ostensibly going to the relief of agriculture in Scotland, £300,000 is going into the pockets of the owners and only £180,000 into the
pockets of those who are really engaged in the industry as occupiers. I call that a disgraceful transaction and a travesty of justice, and when the people of Scotland get to know what is being done, as they will get to know, even the slender representation of Scotland which still supports the present Government will come to an end. It is not without interest to observe that in to-day's Debate the only speaker on behalf of this proposal has been the Solicitor-General for Scotland, apart from the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). He is their last hope. He knows, of course, that as long as he desires he can get in under a system of proportional representation for the Scottish Universities. Therefore, he is immune from the fears of popular anger. Where are their other representatives? There is the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford), who sits on the Treasury Bench. He is preserving the silence that becomes a Whip. The hon. and gallant Member for South Lanark (Captain Elliot) no doubt will endeavour before the Debate comes to a conclusion to give some philosophical defence of this extraordinary procedure. He will defend it, I have no doubt, on biological lines, in the same way in which he held his Fabian theories in the old days before he entered this House. Where are the others? Where is the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home)? He is not here. The hon. Member for Kelvin Grove (Mr. W. Hutchison) is not here. They are all away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dumbartonshire!"] The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Sir W. Raeburn) was here for a moment, but he has also disappeared. Not a single supporter of the Government who has been in the House, except the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities, has spoken on behalf of this proposal. Could there be clearer evidence that not only is it without support in Scotland, but that in principle it is indefensible.
It is important to remember that in 1896, in the heyday of Toryism, in the heyday of the imperialistic reaction in this country, when Lord George Hamilton said the Government were going to look after their friends, both in office and out of office, they did not dare to do this thing. They put forward a much more moderate proposal. They gave relief to the occupiers of land, but none of it was
to go to the owners. Even that proposal was opposed by the present Secretary for Scotland (Lord Novar). Lord Novar was against it, and made many eloquent speeches against it. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer—Mr. McKenna—whom we are shortly to see returned for the City of London, was against it. He made 35 speeches on the Report stage against the much more moderate proposal. Perhaps it is to save his face that the Government are doing this now. Perhaps that is why they are hurrying it through They do not want to have the right hon. Gentleman taunted with his old speeches when he sits on the Treasury Bench.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is not this a Third Reading speech?

Mr. PRINGLE: No, I am dealing with the Amendment, and I am pointing out that on a much more moderate proposal, which did not include this complete departure from all precedent and practice in regard to the relief of rating, two Members of the present Government spoke frequently in opposition. We have had the experience of the 1896 Act, and there have been commissions and committees from time to time in the interval dealing with this topic. Not a single Commission or Committee, no matter by what Government it was appointed, recommended a proposal of this kind. The Dunedin Committee, appointed by the late Government, which was composed, in the main, of supporters of the present Government, did not make this recommendation. It is said that it was not open to them to deal with this matter in their terms of reference. There was nothing in the terms of reference to have prevented that Committee making a recommendation on this matter. Their terms of reference were:
To inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised by local authorities for rating purposes in Scotland,. and to report whether the system is equitable and economical and, if not, to suggest what alterations in the system are desirable.
Those terms of reference are sufficiently wide to have enabled them to inquire into anything in regard to local rating and to make any recommendations which they choose for the purpose of putting local rating upon an equitable basis. They made two significant recommendations. Their eighth recommendation was:
That the Agricultural Rates Act should remain in force without alteration.
There was to be no increase. It was to be without alteration in this respect, that under that Act the whole of the relief goes to the occupier. Their ninth recommendation was that:
The exemption from rates should not be extended,"—
That could only mean that the relief should not be extended,
but that matters should remain as they are.
That is a general recommendation in relation both to exemptions and relief, and that there should be no change either in principle or in fact. When we remember what has been done in the past and what has been done by Commissions, it is clear that the Government have not the slightest shred of authority for the present new departure. Why is it done? We are told that it is a measure of justice, and the people who are going to get something out of it chee red that statement. How is it going to help agriculture, and particularly agriculture in Scotland, to grant relief in this way? If it was necessary for the purpose of granting relief to agriculture to help agriculture in this way, why was it not done in 1896? Why wait until now to find out this particular way of benefiting agriculture? The hon. Member for South Lanark shakes his head. A comparatively newly-fledged Tory like himself must admit that something has to be attributed to experience in these matters.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): Hear, hear! Since 1896.

Mr. PRINGLE: We have had experience, and we have the Report of the latest Committee, which recommends that there should be no change in the principles of the Act of 1896. The argument as to partnership has been raised. It is said that the owners are partners, that the occupier is a partner, and the labourer is a partner. It is very interesting to observe in this Bill that the only person left out is the labourer. When we hear of class war and class legislation it is not inappropriate to remember that. What is the fact in regard to partnership in Scotland? The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities gave an argument in regard to the crofting counties. The argument was that in the crofting
counties the rates had grown to an enormous extent, and had now reached such an excessive figure that many owners whom he knew were not getting a penny out of their property. But in the crofting counties there is no partnership in agriculture. The old partnership has come to an end. The owner has become purely a rent receiver. Nothing which he will get out of this will go to the relief of agriculture. In these crofting areas it is the occupier who makes all improvements, builds the steadings, makes the drains and fences, and, of course, the rates are on the value of the land. The important thing is, you are going to give a grant ostensibly for the relief of agriculture which, in all the crofting counties of Scotland is going into the pockets of the owners without doing any good to agriculture. I would ask the hon. Member for Lanark to refute that argument. Can he show how a penny that goes into the pockets of any landlord in the crofting counties will go to the benefit of agriculture?

Captain ELLIOT: There is not the slightest difficulty.

Mr. PRINGLE: It will be interesting to hear his reply. On all the land let to crofter tenants not a penny will go to agriculture. That is the far larger portion of the land. There is no deer forests land under that tenancy. We have the interesting point whether the deer forests will come in or not. The Solicitor-General, when asked about this, endeavoured to reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and said that the Sheriffs had to interpret the matter. I am not sure what the interpretation of the Sheriffs has been as a matter of practice under the Act of 1896, but it has been suggested to me that deer forests in which there are a few sheep are treated as agricultural subjects for the purpose of relief, and the owners of these deer forests, who get large rents for the forests as sporting subjects, will be able to get relief from the Exchequer to the extent of one-fourth under this Bill.
The whole thing is revealed without any disguise as a gift by the Government to their friends. They are making hay while the sun shines. They know that it is not going to shine very long, but they are going to get off with as
much loot as they can. I admit that in some parts of Scotland there are landowners who have borne their part, in the partnership. Many landowners, to my own knowledge, have made improvements and have done a service to Scottish agriculture but they have got it in the rent. If they have made improvements, drained land, built steadings and done fencing—if you take the better agricultural land in Scotland—the owners have been getting a return in enhanced rent. Some of the highest rented land in the country is in these areas. These people are not suffering at present, nor have they suffered. So where there is a real partnership the relief is not required, but relief is granted where the spirit of the partnership has gone altogether and where the landowner who has obligations under the theory of our system of land tenure has not been fulfilling these obligations. That man will be able to get his share of the spoil.
It is making a very large demand on our credulity to ask us to believe that these landowners who have not fulfilled their responsibilities are going to spend the dole received, under this Bill for the improvement of agriculture. But not content with the partnership argument the Solicitor-General says you must remember the occupying owners. Are you going to relieve the occupying owners in England and not in Scotland? That would be a monstrous injustice to those people who have been increasing in numbers and spreading all over the land. The farms in Scotland have been transformed, the large estate is passing away, and we have now something like what exists in France, a great horde of peasant proprietors. Are we? Where are they? They are going to Canada so far as I can make out.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Lord Eustace Percy): You do not represent a Scottish constituency.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am not the only Scotsman representing an English constituency. I do not know that the Noble Lord can congratulate himself on the most recent acquisition to the representation of his own county, who is a Scotsman also. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The interruption was somewhat irrelevant, and even below the standard of the Noble Lord. We have got figures from the Solicitor-General of the occupying
owners. They are 7,000. They have in creased by 2,000 since 1914, as the result of this great scheme of land settlement whereby the countryside was to be repopulated and the rural life of our country to be revivified by all these gentlemen who were to make a great agricultural new Jerusalem. There are 60,000 agricultural occupiers, so that instead of one in 12, as they were in 1914, we have now something like one in nine occupying owners, and it is for this slender remnant of 7,000 that we are to carry out this great change in the principle of a subvention to agriculture. Even the Solicitor-General can hardly be so innocent as to expect us to believe that that is the motive underlying this proposal. He desires, certainly, to impress the House with those merits which this Government has always claimed for itself. His honesty is verging on simplicity, and we are apt in these circumstances to be impressed with his ingenuous statement, but in this cass I do not think that even his innocence would impose on any hon. Member. The truth is that two-thirds of this subvention in Scotland is going directly into the pockets of the owner. I think that we can take as a proof of what is the real object of the whole proposal.
In form in England it is going to the occupier. In form in Scotland it is going partly to the occupier, but in reality and in the long run the whole thing will go into the pockets of the owner. It is true that the existing occupiers are going to get some moderate relief, and by the expectation of that relief they are induced to support this proposal, but in the long run it is going into the pockets of the owner. Two-thirds are going directly to the owner in Scotland. The Minister of Agriculture knows why that is done. This is to queer the pitch of any future rating reform. This is to create vested interests, to make sure that where any money has gone to once there it will stay. He said so himself. In one of the earlier Debates he said that the advantage of relief of this kind is that, once it is given, it cannot be taken away. That is what happened in 1896.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that the relief in 1896 was given entirely to occupiers.

Mr. PRINGLE: The contention of the Minister, that when such a grant is given
it cannot be taken away, is an indication that it is the intention of this Government to lay hands upon the money of the taxpayer to endow their own supporters.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not know whether my hon. Friend opposite looks upon me as in the category of the very simple. I have listened to some of this Debate, and what has struck me more than anything else is that to be a landlord is one of those things which ought not to be permitted on the face of the earth. I am a Scotsman and a landlord. I have to-day heard various insinuations as to where this money will go, and such like. But let us get back to what is the main issue in this question. It is surely that, owing to the differences in the rating systems of Scotland and England, if you are to give proportionate relief to agriculture in Scotland as compared with agriculture in England, you will have to do what to many hon. Gentlemen seems to be an outrageous thing, that is, give some relief to agriculture through one of the partners of agriculture, the landlord and owner of the land. I listened with amazement to the speech of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). For many years he represented the county in which I happen to own land. He has told this House that in all the years that he represented a Scottish constituency he was never able to understand that there had been any real measure of co-operation between the tenant and the landlord. I am certain that any hon. Member who has followed the history of land in Scotland will agree that, while there have been good and bad landlords, as there have been good and bad tenants, the relationship, on the whole, and through the length and breadth of the country has been a measure of co-operation between the landlord and the tenant. Indeed, if it had not been so, there are many places where agriculture would have suffered gravely.
9.0 P.M.
Let me come to the question of the agricultural occupier. It is true that there may not have been an enormous accession to the number of those who in recent years have bought land and have become owners of property, but in my own locality there are men who, having occupied farms for many years, perhaps for
generations, have, out of sentiment to a great extent, on the break-up of great estates, invested their money in their farms. So far as I know, those men are likely to have increasing difficulty in carrying on their holdings in these properties. You may say that they bought the land at a time when it was dear. That is, possibly, true. But is that not all the greater argument why to-day in this Measure, which is a temporary Measure, we should do something to assist those men to meet their difficulties. I have talked with men who have bought their farms, and they are beginning to realise the immense burden of the upkeep of buildings and fencing. I know personally that there are some farms to-day that are visibly deteriorating in their fencing because these men are finding a difficulty of getting enough to meet these outlays.
I am told that much has been said with regard to the Highlands. It may be true that actual crofting areas will not get the full benefit of what may go to the landlord in this case, but there are very few estates in the North—I have no interest in any of them—which are confined entirely to crofts. They are estates which consist in some portions of crofts, and in other areas are farmed either upon large farming principles or are used wholly or partly for sporting purposes. Where they are used wholly for sporting purposes the landlord will get no benefit under this Bill, as I understand it. If these properties carry upon them sheep and cattle, in addition to such game as deer, and if they carry them in fair and reasonable proportion, which, I think, is a matter for settlement by the Courts if there is any question in dispute—under those circumstances what argument in equity should be advanced against dealing with questions of that kind? I, for my sins or pleasure, as you may look at it, am the proprietor of an estate. I do not like to speak of personal matters, but in deed and in fact, if I do my duty by my property, I see not a penny of my rental coming into my hands for expenditure upon living in London or upon buying anything for my own particular pleasure. It may be that there are landlords who do not carry out their full duties, as they ought to do, but I say without fear of contradiction, in Scotland or elsewhere, that the great majority
of them are well aware of the responsibilities and the duty which they owe, not only to their tenants but to the country as a whole.
As far as I can see it would be a great mistake for Scotland at present, whatever the prejudice—there is a prejudice, born, I think, of misconception and ignorance in some part, and born out of realities in other parts, a prejudice against giving anything or voting to give anything to a class which is called the landlord class—it would be a lamentable mistake, from the point of view of agriculture as a whole in Scotland, that you should refuse to take from the Government a grant which is going to help agriculture throughout the country. I am a Lowlander and not a Highlander. I have the greatest sympathy with the Highlanders. I have the greatest desire to see men settled on the land in the Highlands, but agriculture is not confined to the Highlands, and our discussions in this House too often centre on the question of land settlement, important though it is, rather than upon the question of agriculture in the Lowlands and throughout the southern portion of my country. I welcome this temporary Measure in support of agriculture, and I feel that those who disagree with it are doing a grievous injury to the industry as a whole by the attitude which they have taken up and the proposals which they have made.

Mr. MUIR: Had it not been for the intervention of the right hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Sir J. Gilmour), I do not think I would have spoken in this Debate, but when he., representing the landed interests, intercedes on behalf of those interests, I think it is right that the points he has raised should be dealt with. He also advances the idea of a partnership between landlord and tenant. I do not know anything about the hon. Gentleman's own landowning, nor do I wish to criticise it, and there is nothing personal in the remarks I am about to make, but it seems to me evident that landlord and tenant are not on an equal footing. It is quite true that a landlord with enlightened self-interest realises that if he is to get anything out of his land he must keep his tenant going and must pay attention to his own duties in keeping his hereditaments in order. Otherwise, he is killing the goose that
lays the golden eggs, for if he is left without a tenant there can be no income from his land and it is to his interest to play his own part. But there is no question of a partnership at all. It is the same thing in the case of the landlord who does not fulfil his obligations, who does not keep fences in order, drainage in good condition or farm buildings in proper repair. If this grant is given there is no penalty against those who fail to fulfil these obligations and there is no guarantee that the grant is going to be used for the fulfilment of their obligations by those landlords who are at present, either from inability or through deliberate intention, departing from those obligations. There is no guarantee that buildings will be put into repair or the land drained and fenced, in cases where those duties have been neglected. In the matter of housing, a 25 per cent. increase was allowed under the Rents Act for repairs, but in 75 per cent. of the cases the repairs were not done. In this case landlords who have been either unable or unwilling to keep their property in good repair are going to get a further relief, and that is all it amounts to.
The right hon. Member for the Pollok Division said there seemed to be a general feeling that to be a landlord at all was a thing that should not be permitted. He knows perfectly well that there has always been a strong objection to landlords, as such, and it is growing particularly in Scotland. It is not the case as the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) sought to make out, that the landowner, as such, contributes anything to agriculture. The landowner, as landowner, contributes nothing whatever. It is those who are tenant farmers, who maintain their own buildings, fences and drains. It has been argued, on the other side, in support of this grant that the owner-occupiers are already doing so, and if they are already doing so, why give a grant to the landowners who are doing nothing? I am not prepared to deny that the man who has come into possession of property during recent years and who may have bought it at the peak price, is in great difficulty at the moment. But is there no way of securing for those people some assistance on the same lines as those on which credit facilities have been given, instead
of giving it on a flat rate to all and sundry and giving it to those who are holders of land and who contribute nothing to the industry—people who are barnacles on agriculture and who hamper the progress of the industry? We on these benches would not say that the owner-occupier who is in difficulties has no right to any assistance, but it does not follow that there is any sound reason for giving that assistance to the landlords.

Sir J. GILMOUR: When the hon. Member says that the landlord is contributing nothing, does he realise that in Scotland all the farm buildings are erected and kept up by the landlords, and the fencing and drainage done by the landlords? In these circumstances, can it be said that the landlord contributes nothing?

Mr. MUIR: If that were the case there might be something to be said for the right hon. Member's view, but he himself has already admitted that he is only doing it himself with the greatest difficulty, in so far as he is doing it at all, and that he is getting nothing out of it. It is only a question of degree until he is unable to do it, and he admits that there are many now in the position of being unable to do it. While the right hon. Member might take advantage of this grant to put his buildings, drains and fences in repair it, does not follow that all the others will do so, and I see no reason why they should be given a free hand. In the case of the small holdings, the landlord contributes nothing and, as stated by the hon. Member for the Sottish Universities, in the crofting areas it is not the landlord who does that work at all. It is not the landlord who should get consideration but the producer who is working on the land. Hon. Members who advance the theory of the partnership in agriculture, omit the chief factor in agriculture. The labourer is never mentioned on the other side of the House and he does not come into this Bill at all. If there is any partnership, then all who take part in agriculture must be regarded as shareholders. If the agricultural labourers, who are numerically the largest number, are left out—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Only those who pay rates are affected.

Mr. MUIR: While it is a common custom that agricultural labourers have their cottages as part of the appurtenances of the job, they are not all in that position, and those who are living off the farms have rates to pay, and are getting no assistance whatever. In any case, if they do not pay rates, if there is any reference made to a partnership, and if there is any hardship imposed on those who are parties to it, surely the Government and their supporters, who are so anxious about the well-being of the partnership, should also have concerned themselves with the condition of those larger numbers who are parties to the partnership. I support the Amendment.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: After the long and clear arguments that have been addressed to the Government, I think we ought to have some answer. [Laughter.] An hon. Gentleman opposite laughs, but he has just come in, and I am sure he knows nothing about what has taken place. I am not surprised, therefore, to find that he laughs, as he so often does, but this is a very serious matter for Scotland, and I think we are entitled to insist upon a clear answer being given. We have pointed out that by this Bill a large subvention is being given ostensibly to agriculture, and we have said that the greater part of it is going directly into the pockets of the landlord. We say that that will not help agriculture. The Government's case is that they say it is true that a large part of this subvention is going into the pockets of the landlords, but that in some mysterious way it will percolate down to the other partners, as they are called, in the industry; that it is going to help the tenant in that he will have lower rents and better equipped holdings, and indeed, as far as I can gather, the agricultural labourer is going to have higher wages.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: They have not said that.

Major WOOD: That seems to me to be implicit in the case that is being attempted to be made for this Bill, and if I am stating it wrongly, I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Scottish Board of Health to tell us whether I am wrong. A specific case was put from this side a moment or two ago, which, I think, deserves an immediate answer. It was
pointed out that there cannot be any possibility of anything percolating through to the tenants and the workmen on a large area of land in Scotland which at the present time is worked under the small holdings system, because under that system at any rate, whatever may be the case in other parts of the country, there is no possibility of the landlord, even if he wished to do so, helping in the development of small holdings. He has no connection with them. He is simply there to receive rents, which are fixed by a land court, but he does not build the buildings, he does not do the drains, he does nothing at all in connection with the equipping of the holding, and I should like a specific answer on that point.
How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that any money which is given in relief of rates to the landlord of land which is farmed under the small holdings system can possibly get through to the tenant and to the labourer on that land? If it cannot go through, as I maintain it cannot, how can he say that that money will in any way benefit agriculture? That is a clear argument which has been put up to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we ought to hear what he has to say upon it.

Captain ELLIOT: I think that, in common with many other Members of the House, we thought that the rodomontades that have come from the other side were for consumption in the Press, and not for answering here, as indeed is evidenced by the fact that the hon. Member who put a case just now immediately on making his speech went out of the House, and has not yet returned.

Major WOOD: He remained here a long time after he made his speech, and he went out, as he told me, to get his dinner.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: May I point out that the specific case made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was also made in the Standing Committee, and was not answered there.

Dr. CHAPPLE: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone, I think this explanation is due. It was not out of any discourtesy to the reply which he anticipated from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that he went out, but my hon. Friend waited until 9 o'clock to make that very valuable contribution to
the Debate, and has now rushed out to get a snack of something to eat.

Captain ELLIOT: I am the last to wish to import any heat into the Debate, but I should have thought the answer to the complaint put forward was obvious on the face of it. After long debate, the case for the Government was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland. It was completely covered by him. He gave the answer is as complete terms as it possibly could be given, and it would be wearying the House to repeat that answer. But my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major Wood) has asked me how it was supposed that any of the benefit which was given to the landlords would ever penetrate to the tenants. We say that the landlord is carrying on with difficulty just now, and that it is becoming impossible for him to do his duty. That is the general case for the Bill, and I am sorry to repeat it again. Then we come to one specific case which has been put from various sides of the Opposition, with regard to somebody with a tenure under the Crofters Acts. In the general case of an estate, it consists partly of crofts and partly of general farming. One of the difficulties which we have been experiencing at this moment in the administration of the Crofting Acts is that the essence of those Acts is the breaking up of the big estates. One of the points we have been repeatedly asked to deal with has been the breaking up of the big estates, leading to great disturbances among the crofters. We are taking such emergency measures just now, to enable the large landholders to carry out their duty by providing a certain amount of capital. This will affect all alike—laird, tenant and farm servant—for, though the farm servant is not specifically mentioned, his welfare is more closely bound up with the industry than that of any other man. Now, through the breaking up of the big estates, the small holder finds himself placed in a dilemma which we see in practice, but which had not been previously contemplated by those who passed the very legislation under which it is occurring. One of the duties of the present Government will be to take further legislative steps to deal with that emergency. This Bill is one of the steps toward meeting the emergency, and, in that particular instance, the pre-
servation of that system under which the small holder will get his benefit, and will receive as much as any other man in Scotland.

Mr. MacNEILL WEIR: Is it the case that the owner of a deer forest gets the benefit of this grant?

Captain ELLIOT: That is a question which has really been answered very

often. A man with a deer forest does not get a penny under this. If there be any dispute as to whether the estate is a sporting estate or not, it goes before the Courts of the country to determine, and that is a complete answer to the allegation.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 190.

Division No. 285.]
AYES.
[9.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richards, R.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hancock, John George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben


Ammon, Charles George
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, C. R.
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hemmerde, E. G.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Royce, William Stapleton


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Saklatvala, S.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hinds, John
Salter, Dr. A.


Bonwick, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A.
Irving, Dan
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simpson, J. Hope


Brotherton, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Buckie, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Burgess, S.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Snowden, Philip


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Chapple, W. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Leach, W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collison, Levi
Linfield, F. C.
Tillett, Benjamin


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Tout, W. J.


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Warne, G. H.


Duffy, T. Gavan
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Ede, James Chuter
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Middleton, G.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Falconer, J.
Millar, J. D.
Whiteley, W.


Foot, Isaac
Morel, E. D.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Muir, John W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wintringham, Margaret


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Mr. Phillipps and Major McKenzie Wood.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Bruford, R.
Cope, Major William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Barnston, Major Harry
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Butcher, Sir John George
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Berry, Sir George
Butt, Sir Alfred
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Blundell, F. N.
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Davies, David (Montgomery)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Brass, Captain W.
Clayton, G. C.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Dixon, Capt, H. (Belfast, E.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Ellis, R. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Flanagan, W. H.
Lorden, John William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lorimer, H. D.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Lort-Williams, J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
McNeill, Ronald (Kent. Canterbury)
Shepperson, E. W.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Singleton, J. E.


Gates, Percy
Margesson, H. D. R.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Gretton, Colonel John
Mercer, Colonel H.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morris, Harold
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Halstead, Major D.
Nall, Major Joseph
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harrison, F. C.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Tubbs, S. W.


Harvey, Major S. E.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Wells, S. R.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pielou, D. P.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Privett, F. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.
Wise, Frederick


Hopkins, John W. W.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Wolmer, Viscount


Houfton, John Plowright
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hughes, Collingwood
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hume, G. H.
Remer, J. R.



Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rentoul, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hurd, Percy A.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.



Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move in paragraph (1), after the word "councils" ["parish councils be held"], to insert the words:
(with the exception hereinafter provided with respect to rates leviable under certified classifications).
This matter is possibly one of some complication. There is existing in regard to parish rating a system of classification under which occupiers may be put into one, two, three, or four classes differently rated according to the purposes for which the property assessed is used. For instance, the owners of shops may be rated at the full rate; houses at three-quarters of the full rate; and the land, at possibly, one-half of whatever the rate was. That system existed in a considerable number of parishes, usually partly urban and partly rural in character. In 1896 it was provided that all classifications should be brought to an end, save such as were certi-
fied by the Secretary for Scotland, to give terms as favourable to the agricultural occupier as the terms which were given by the Act of 1896, namely, that the agricultural occupier was not to be rated on more than three-eighths of the annual value. Those parishes which have, classifications were entitled, if so disposed, to abandon them. Out of 900 parishes, 160 had certified classifications in 1896, and since that date by abandonment of certified classifications the numbers have sunk to about 40 or 5 per cent. We thought all could be abolished without any alteration of the burdens of the ratepayers in any parish which possessed the system of classification.
It has, however, been brought to our notice that it would mean entailing certain alterations of the burdens on different classes of ratepayers, and it has, therefore, been thought advisable, so long as the education rate continues to be levied on the parish basis, not to effect the
abolition of classifications altogether as was originally proposed in Clause 11, but to allow classifications to be continued, if certified by the Secretary for Scotland, in cases where the rates are not more than one-half of those which would fall on the agricultural occupiers under the present Act. My reason for saying that they would not pay more than one-half is that the provisions of Clause 7 do not apply. My Amendment foreshadows an Amendment to Clause 11 and cuts out of the provisions of paragraph (1) of Clause 7 those cases where the classification exists.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an assurance that the various parish councils affected by this Amendment have been consulted?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can readily give that assurance. We have only heard from one parish—Paisley—where they say it would mean a certain change of burden in respect of the rates. We have only forty altogether. We have not heard from the others.

Mr. MILLAR: Were the other parishes notified?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (2), after the word "council" ["or parish council"], insert the words "(with the exception aforesaid.)"—[The Solicitor General for Scotland.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston), at the end of the Clause to insert a new paragraph (4), has already been dealt with as a new Clause. I understand that the hon. Member now desires to leave out Clause 9.

CLAUSE 9.—(Ascertainment of amount of additional annual grant for Scotland and of payments to rating authorities.)

(1) The Secretary for Scotland shall ascertain and certify with respect to the local financial year ending the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and each succeeding local financial year:

(a) the amount which is to be taken as having been raised during the year by each rating authority by each rate
1492
leviable by the authority, and the portion of such amount which would represent the owners' share thereof if this Act had not passed; and
(b) the whole valuation of the rateable area of each rating authority for each rate, and the portion of such valuation which represents the valuation of agricultural lands and heritages.

(2) That part of the owners' share of the amount to be taken as having been raised by each rate which represents the proportion borne by the valuation of agricultural lands and heritages in the rateable area to the whole valuation of the rateable area shall, to the extent of three-eighths thereof, ascertained and certified by the Secretary for Scotland with respect to each local financial year, be the amount payable with respect to that year to the rating authority in respect of that rate out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and a sum equal to the aggregate of the amounts so payable in respect of each local financial year to all the rating authorities ascertained and certified as aforesaid shall be the amount of the additional annual grant for Scotland in respect of that year.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
The point here is an exceedingly difficult one. I am not quite sure that I understand it myself, and, therefore, I am not sure that I can explain it to the House. I understand, however, the Solicitor-General has a hazy idea of what it means. Before 1899 certain rates were payable by certain owners in the counties. By Section 27 of the Local Government Act power was taken to get the sheriff to fix an average of 10 years for these rates. It was called the average rate. In most counties in Scotland there is a certain proportion where the rates are levied half and half. Under this Bill in regard to the proportion recoverable from the occupiers the rating authority will lose upon the average rate for the year, and it will be recovered by the Government subvention from the three-eighths paid by the owner. The remaining one-eighth, however, will cause a loss to the local authority on account of the subvention on the average rate.
I do not know how much money this means to the county council altogether, but so far as my information goes, unless it is safeguarded in this Bill, it means a net increase in the loss which must be made up by the local rating authority, and I understand that it will amount to about £6,000. I know that is not a very large sum, and it is to be spread all over the counties in Scotland, but all the same
it is an injustice, and an added burden which was never intended to be put upon the county rate. I understand that a case was stated to the Scottish Office pointing out this grievance and that Department replied quite sympathetically, but they stated that they could not suggest an exact form of words which would abolish the grievance and save the local rating authorities from being compelled to pay the average portion of the one-eighth. I am moving to omit this Clause in order to enable the Solicitor-General to see if he can suggest a form of words which will remedy this grievance.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to Second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I am afraid that it will not be possible now to find a form of words that would not have the effect of increasing the charge, because it would involve the raising of an extra sum of £6,000.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that this Amendment will impose a charge and therefore it cannot be in order at this stage.

Mr. SPEAKER: I pointed out to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that his Amendment would involve a charge, and I suggested that he should move to leave out the Clause.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The owners paid all the county rates up to 1889 when the county councils were set up. It was provided by the Local Government Act of that year, that owners in the counties should in the future pay all the rates up tothe amount of the average rates payable in each county by them for the ten years previous to the passing of the Act, and that beyond that amount county rates should fall half on owner and half on occupier. It is, therefore, the case that, to a very small degree, the owners in the county are paying a greater proportion than the occupiers, and to that extent there is this deficiency of one-eighth of the average rate. It is a small matter of £6,000 spread over the whole of Scotland, and in any case it would only average about 2d. in the £. The Dunedin Committee recommended that this system of the average rate should be abolished. Their proposal is that, in
future, the county rates should be equally divided between the owner and the occupier. This anomaly coming down from past times was considered by the Dunedin Committee and they recommended that the stereotyped average rate should be abolished. Therefore, in any scheme of rating reform which may be proposed, it is most likely that the owners' stereotyped average rate will be abolished, and it will be provided that the rate shall fall equally on owners and occupiers. I am thoroughly aware of the point which has been raised, and I admit that there will be that very small deficiency due to a system which we hope very shortly to abolish. It would be impossible to deal with it now without imposing a charge.

Mr. MILLAR: I think it is a pity that this particular matter did not receive consideration in due time, so that it might have been dealt with in the Financial Resolution. If the House had been favoured with a correct exposition of the state of matters in the White Paper which was circulated we should then have been in a position to have realised that what was now being proposed was not substantially correct. I trust that we shall have these matters correctly stated in the future, and put before the House.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 11.—(Certified classifications to cease.)

As from the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and during the continuance of this Act, every certified classification within the meaning of the Act of 1896 which was in force at the said date shall cease to have any force or effect.

Amendment made: At the end of the Clause insert the words:
except any existing classification which shall be certified by the Secretary for Scotland in terms of the next succeeding Sub-section of this Section.
Provided that a parish council shall have power at any time within two months after the passing of this Act to alter any existing classification so far as necessary to enable it to be certified as aforesaid.
(2) If it shall be certified by the Secretary for Scotland that the rates leviable on the occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages in pursuance of an existing classification (including an existing classification altered as aforesaid) are not more than one-half of the rates which would without classification be leviable on such occupiers in terms of this Act, such classification shall have effect, and the provisions of the Section of this Act relating to annual value of agricultural
lands and heritages for county and parish rates shall not apply to the occupiers' share of the rates leviable by the parish council in pursuance of that classification.

SCHEDULE.


PART III


Provisions of Act of 1896 applied.
Modifications.


Section 6
…
…
…
…
The words "any additional relief to the occupiers of agricultural "lands and heritages effected by this Act" shall be substituted for the words "the relief effected by this Act from a proportion "of the consolidated rate, poor rate, and other rates before "mentioned."

Mr. FALCONER: I beg to move in Part III, to leave out the word "additional" ["additional relief "].
I do so in order to get an explanation as to what is the exact meaning of these words. I understand the purpose of this proposal is to ensure that the additional relief is not to be taken into account in ascertaining the proper amount. The Bill states that the legislation is to remain in force under the Act of 1896 subject to the modifications in the Schedule. The Schedule instead of leaving out these words puts in the word "additional." Therefore if you are to give effect to that part you must to that extent revoke the decision of the Act of 1896. I take it that what is meant is the additional relief granted under this Act, and this Bill would cancel what was granted under the Act of 1896. If the draftsmen say that the intention is what I have stated, then I shall be quite satisfied.

Mr. MILLAR: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: Under Section 6 of the Act of 1896 it is provided that the Land Court, in fixing a fair rent, is not to be entitled to take into account the relief afforded by that Act. That relief is not in any way affected by this Bill. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 12 in the present Bill he will find these words:
The provisions of the Act of 1896 set out in Part III of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this Act, so far as it relates to Scotland, as if they were re-enacted in this Act with the modifications (if any) specified in the second column of that Part of the Schedule.
Then if he will look to the Schedule he will find provision with regard to the

Provided that a parish council shall have power to abandon any classification certified in terms of this Sub-section.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

additional grant, so that you have the original Section in the Act dealing with the additional grant re-enacted for the purposes of this Act in dealing with the additional grant. Both, in fact, are covered.

Mr. FALCONER: In view of the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
In asking the House to refuse a Third Reading to this Bill I am speaking for the Labour party. The reasons which we adduce in order to get the House to agree with us are threefold. In the first place we object to selecting one among many suffering industries in this country for a subvention. Secondly, we believe that the subvention given in this case will go sooner or later into the pockets of the landlords in the shape of the increased price of land, and, thirdly, we do not believe that this is at all the way to promote the development of agriculture in this country. Let me say a few words on each of these three points. I believe hon. Members opposite will agree with us that it is a wrong principle that any particular industry in this country should come upon the vast mass of the taxpayers of the country for financial assistance for that particular industry. It is a system of subvention which has been denounced
as much by hon. Gentlemen opposite as it has been by hon. Members on this side of the House, and I cannot believe that any fair-minded man opposite can really make a case satisfactory from his own point of view for asking when the whole country is suffering as it is to-day, that one industry should be selected for encouragement at the expense of all the other industries. In this particular case we have an even stronger argument to adduce against this subvention policy. Suppose the shipping industry in this country came forward—goodness knows the shipping industry is going through as hard times as any industry—and asked for a subvention from the Government of £3,000,000 a year, or more or less. If that subvention were granted, sooner or later would find there would be greater competition in the industry and the subvention would not remain in the pockets of the shipping companies, but would find its way into the pockets of the public in the shape of reduced freight rates. In the same way, if a grant were made for every pair of boots manufactured in this country, the result would be that more people would go into the boot industry, there would be greater competition, the price of boots would ultimately come down, and the subvention would find its way into the pockets of the public. In this particular industry that is not the case. In the case of a subvention to the agricultural industry it is admitted by hon. Members opposite that it would not find its way into the pockets of the public in the shape of cheaper food, but it would go into the pockets of the landlords in the form of increased rents. In the case of Scotland it goes directly into their pockets, and when we are told that in the agricultural districts, if you give more money to the landlords they will put more into improvements and into bricks and mortar, then one can only point out that that form of subvention is one that should, in decency, be accompanied by some guarantee that the money so received will indeed be spent as it is intended to be spent nominally by hon. Members opposite.
10.0 P.M.
In this particular case the concession given to the agricultural industry by the reduction in the rates upon land means that the landlords, by reason of that reduction, are able to demand higher
rents or higher prices for the land. Indeed, this last raid on the public purse is but one of a long series of similar raids which have been going on for centuries. The landlords under Charles II got rid of their hereditary feudal burden by substituting land laws. Since that time the land taxes have remained, and there has been no attempt to revise them. Also, since that time more and more burdens have been taken off the shoulders of the landlords, and now in the Act of 1896 and in this present Act we are getting a repetition of the same thing, of people shaking the burdens from their own shoulders and putting them on to the public. These were hereditary burdens in the sense that the land was inherited subject to the burden of the poor rate and subject to the burden of local government expenditure. Land has been bought and sold subject to those charges time after time, and now we come along and say we will relieve the landlords of half, or two-thirds, or three-fourths of the burden, and the result will be that the prospective purchaser of the land, in making his purchase, will work out the fact that the rates are less than they were previously, and therefore he is enabled to make an equally good bargain by paying a little more in the capital sum in view of the annual drain of rates having been thus lessened. The natural result is that when a man buys an estate he is inheriting something more than the £3,000,000 which this Bill gives; he is inheriting the capitalised value of that £3,000,000 for something like 25 years. It will mean that when a man wants to buy land for productive purposes he will have to pay not his share of the £3,000,000 but his share of the capitalised value of those £3,000,000 in order to have the opportunity of using that land. That is what, I think, it is most important we should realise, that when the Government talk about this scheme, as they did on Second Reading, as facilitating employment, and helping the development of land, the immediate result of this scheme is to increase the price of land. If you increase the price of land, you make it more difficult than it was before for labour to get access to that land, and all production depends in the first place on labour's access to the land.

Sir F. BANBURY: The newspapers show that there is any quantity of land
for sale at the present moment, which cannot be sold because there are not any buyers.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The whole object of our party is to get that land cheaper, so that labour can get access on easier terms. The result of this Bill will be to make that land dearer, and therefore you make it more difficult for labour to get access. In that way you are creating more unemployment than there is to-day. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford asks, "Why are you down on landlords," and "Why should not the whole House join together in making this subvention?" Really, I do not think the landlords in this country would be as unpopular as they are to-day if they really understood what it is other people see them doing. The landlord, as a landlord, is not half so unpopular as the landlord sponging, and when we see the landlords sponging on the community, and at the same time talking as they do about the benefit they contribute to the human race, it is more than human nature can really stand, and if the landlords are going to get back into their ancient position of reputable popularity, they must give up this way of sponging on the community. It has become a positive obsession with them that the community exists for the benefit of the landlord, and that they are always entitled to take whatever they can from other people, whether from a submissive Government or in any other way. That sort of position is enough to make anyone unpopular.
We object to this Bill because it selects one particular industry for a subvention at the expense of all the other industries. This Bill, in the guise of a subvention to an industry, is in England and Scotland putting money straight—I will not say straight in the case of England, but ultimately—into the pockets of the landlords—but straight in the case of Scotland, with the approval of the Conservative party—a strange aberration on their part, which will probably be heard of more in the country, and putting it ultimately into the pockets of the landlords in England, a point which will also be heard of in the country. Our third objection to this Bill is, that it does not give assistance to agriculture in any way which is really effective. It is always said that, there are people who farm the
land, and people who farm the farmers. The people who are helped by this Bill are those who farm the farmers, but any assistance that is be of benefit to agriculture must help those who farm the land. You have got to deal with your rating problem, which is obscured by this particular solution brought forward by the Government. The Government admit that the whole rating problem has got to be taken up. They admit that this is only a stop-gap remedy. I hope it will only be a stop-gap remedy.
A real scheme of reform must deal with the whole rating question. I have been listening all through the Debate to speeches of hon. Members on both sides, in which the whole burden seemed to be that what was wanted for agriculture was better buildings, better drainage, better fencing, better roads, and that expenditure, either by landlords or occupiers, upon improving the land produced more, and produced more cheaply. I wonder if it does not occur to those hon. Members opposite who were advocating that this scheme, by putting more money into the landlords' pockets, might enable these very desirable improvements to be made, that perhaps the best way of encouraging both landlord and tenant to build, drain, fence and generally improve the property would be to change the basis of rating completely and remove the rates which at present fall upon buildings and improvements. We attempted to amend the Bill in that direction. It was ruled out of order—I do not find fault with that ruling—because it was said that this was a Bill to relieve agricultural land, and not to relieve the improvements upon that land. That is the Bill, and so much the worse for the Bill, even in the opinion of honest men opposite who really want to see agriculture developed, to see two blades of grass grow where one grew before, by the application of labour and capital to the land in order to improve it.
Surely if hon. Members are honest in their desire to encourage those improvements, by far the best way would be to spend exactly the same money which is to be spent in this Bill in taking the rates off land, which is not improved, by taking off the same amount of rates upon buildings, machinery, drainage and fencing and other improvements. That, obviously, would have been the way to benefit agriculture the most. May I point
out the enormous advantage that any scheme of that sort would have for the smallholder, and particularly for the allotment holder—in fact, for exactly those classes who stand under this scheme to get no benefit at all, because it is notorious that the percentage of improvements upon a small holding or an allotment to the value of the land comprised in the small holding or allotment is much greater in the case of small holdings and allotments than in the case of big farms. Big farms covering an extended area will have good farm buildings, but the proportionate ratio of the value of land to the value of improvements is very much smaller in the case of the big farms than in the case of small holdings and allotments; so that if your scheme for helping agriculture by encouraging improvements, by increasing the number of small holdings, and increasing the number of men giving their time to it—if you are really going to help that, obviously, it would be infinitely better to remove the rates which at present burden improvements and use the £3,000,000 you are at present squandering by putting it into the landlords' pockets, and give a real benefit to agriculture by making those improvements less costly.
There is no doubt that at the present time every one of the improvements which hon. Members opposite have been advocating, if put into practice by the landlord or by the tenant, would immediately result in a visit to the unfortunate ratepayer from the assessment committee, who would say to him, "You have improved your property, you have fenced it, you have put up new farm buildings, and a new shed for the new motor tractor, and, therefore, we are entitled to increase your assessment and charge you more rates." That is a direct discouragement of exactly the sort of improvements for which hon. Members opposite and on this side have been asking. The only difference is that hon. Members opposite do not follow their own ideas to their logical conclusion, while we on this side do attempt to do so. There is a further difference between us and hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite want improvements in agriculture just as much as we do. Why do they not follow out that idea? Why do they not advocate the removal of rates from improvements in agriculture? For
the very simple reason that they know that if those rates were reduced it would not be the landed interest that would get the benefit; it would not be hon. Members opposite who would find their incomes going up. The result of reducing the rates on improvements would be to cheapen the production of agriculture, and so bring about lower prices to the consumer; and, therefore, that is not one of the forms of reform which hon. Members opposite will support.

Sir F. BANBURY: I fail to see how my income will be increased by this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Baronet says that his income will not increase by reason of this Bill. He may be an exceptional landlord who will not raise his rents. It may be that his tenants are paying far less than the economic rent, and that he will not seek to raise it. But there are others who are not quite such simple-minded patriots, and they may say to their tenants, "As your rates have gone down your rent can go up without your being any worse of." Those things which the right hon. Baronet in his position in this House dare not do others will do. We have to look to the position of the ordinary man. The fact is that the Conservative party are in power, and, as in previous cases when they have been in power, they are going to help their friends. This is a policy of spoils for the victors. The victors are opposite, and they take the spoils; but they might permit the victims to make some little protest, and point out to the victors that, though they are the victors now, others will be the victors in the future, and this wrong and others can be revised.
What I am interested in at the present moment is the attitude taken up by the Liberal party. I wish the shade of Sir William Harcourt could visit the party. We have had speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland), from the hon. Member for Denbighshire (Mr. J. C. Davies), and from another hon. Member—men who are nominally Liberals—urging a policy which the united Liberal party have opposed consistently for 30 years. They now come forward with the old, stale arguments that were used by Mr. Chaplin. One wonders whether Liberalism has not entirely left those benches and come on to these. It
will be interesting to see whether they vote with the vested interests. I am confident that all that is best in the Liberal party will support us in voting against the Third Reading of this Bill, and in doing so they will perform a public-spirited action, and show that there are, besides the Labour party, people who are determined, in these as in other circumstances, to support the public interest against the vested interests.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because I am convinced, not only that this Bill is inequitable so far as the community as a whole is concerned, but that it will not achieve the purpose for which it is ostensibly brought forward. Although I think the Bill is fundamentally wrong, there would be something to be said for it if the Government had taken the precaution, in the provisions of the Bill, to arrange that the relief which they are asking the House to vote to agriculture really does get to the people who require it—if, for instance, in this Bill, they had done what was done when the Corn Production Act was passed in 1917, and had provided machinery whereby the occupier, in the event of his being called upon to pay an increased rent as a consequence of this relief, could have had his case submitted to the arbitration of an impartial court. If the Government had done that, if it had shown any disposition to safeguard the public money we are now being asked to vote, to reach the source and to serve the purposes it was intended for, something might have been said in justification of it, but nothing of the kind is done. We are asked to give the Government a blank cheque, to hand over £2,750,000 ostensibly to relieve the rates, but ultimately to reach the pockets of the landlord.
We have been told repeatedly from the opposite side of the House that this relief will really stop with the farmer and none of it will go to the landlord. May I call attention to the experience we have had under previous Acts of this kind. There are two, the principal Act of 1896 and in economic effect the Corn Production Act of 1917. What is this Bill asking the House to do? The Ministry have issued a statement in which they gave examples
of what is going to occur. On page 4 of this White Paper there is an actual case given. They suppose a rateable area of £12,000, of which £4,000 is the rateable value of the land and £6,000 the rateable value of the buildings, and they show that to such an area the Bill will give £500 to the occupier of the land. What difference is there in principle in the economic effect of that as against the effect of the Coin Production Act which gave a subsidy to farmers for the production of oats and wheat? In principle there is no difference at all. Speaking on the Agricultural Rates Bill in 1896 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said it was known for a fact that if this relief was not given rents would inevitably go down. In other words, the result of that Act was to save the landowners from reducing rents. That will be the economic effect of this Bill. It is to save the owners of land from reducing rents. As to whether owners of land have reduced rents or increased them in consequence of these subsidies, let me give the evidence. I am going to put in the witness box a Member of the House—unfortunately not in his place. The evidence is from the Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1919 and one of the witnesses was a member of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Donaldson, and he was asked:
I am asking you for next year now what your view is as to what those prices ought to be.
The reply was:
I should certainly say economic prices ought to be higher for next year in view of our having decreasing hours worked by the labourers which will mean increase of cost. Then again you are having increases of rent taking place. That will come into operation on a good many farms next year.
11,505. Would the rent be about 66 per cent.?—I have cases of rent being raised 60 per cent.
I will now quote the evidence of a present Member of this House, the hon. Member for the Kinross Division of Scotland (Mr. J. Gardiner):
13,008. Would I be right in inferring that in your opinion a guarantee would tend to raise rents?—And rightly tend to raise rents.
13,009. It would raise rents?—I have no doubt of it whatever.
That is the evidence of two witnesses at the Royal Commission. I can give other evidence. In 1919 there was issued a
report of the Committee appointed by the Agricultural Wages Board to inquire into the financial results of the occupation of agricultural land on the cost of living. The section dealing with farm rents gives certain important information. It deals with 112 farms from which returns had been obtained. It has been stated that from 1895 down to 1915 rents in both England and Scotland for agricultural land decreased by 10 per cent. In 1915 we had the War conditions. This inquiry was held in 1919, two years after the imposition of the Corn Production Act, and here are 112 farms from which returns had been obtained, as the report says, "under great difficulties." They found people reticent as to what the increases were. There were 112 authenticated cases spread over almost every county in England, and the result was that, as compared with 1914, the rents on these 112 farms had risen from £27,252 to £32,500. In the case of farms in the Lincolnshire area the rise was 28 per cent.; in Cambridgeshire, 33 per cent.; in Essex, 23 per cent.; in Sussex, 22 per cent.; and in Norfolk, 26 per cent. Here is the evidence that the subsidy under the Corn Production Act in those first two years had had the effect of turning the decrease which had taken place from 1895 to 1915 into a gradual increase of agricultural rents I am not quite sure what the rents are to-day, but I have from my own district a concrete case which brings us down to 1922, and I find that, whereas the farm of which I have particulars had maintained a steady rent of £259, when it came to the year 1920 the rent suddenly rose by £87, and went up to £346. It maintained that rent through 1921. When the Corn Production Act was repealed there was a reduction on that farm of £40, which proves clearly that a subsidy, either in the shape of relief of rates or the price of corn, ultimately finds its way into the pockets of the landlord. We protest against this Bill, because we say that it is not a Bill to relieve agriculture. It is a landlords' relief Bill, and on that ground we will vote against it.

Mr. BRUFORD: I came into this House while the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was speaking. I did not hear all he said, which is possibly to my advantage. Since I have been listening to this Debate I have heard nothing but rubbish, which
has been served up for consumption in the towns where people know nothing about the subject. The Proposer and Seconder of the rejection of the Bill would not dare to go into my county, in the country districts, and utter the words which they have uttered to-day. I do not believe that either of these Gentlemen would know the difference between a head of rye, bearded wheat, and barley. I have listened to a diatribe against the landlord, but not for the first time am I taking the landlord's part in this House. I am a tenant farmer, and I am grateful to the landlords. Nothwithstanding all that has been done against them by the Labour party and their friends, the landlords are still a great asset to the country, for this reason. They are still supplying a great part of the capital necessary to carry on the business of agriculture. Farmers who have got to buy their farms have very often to raise capital from the banks and pay a big interest. The landlord in many cases is not getting more than two or three per cent. for his money, and you cannot get money at that rate at any bank. Besides, the landlord does the repairs to a great extent and often helps his poorer neighbours. That is not thought about in this House.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us just now he would see that the action of the Government was understood in the country. I do not mind if he does that, so long as he will see that his emissaries tell the truth about the Conservative party and the landlord. [Laughter.] You can laugh as much as you like, but you know, as well as I do, I am saying what is true. We have been told that we are asking for charity. The Government are not giving us anything in charity. We are simply asking for our just due. For many years agriculture has been taxed on an unfair basis. I agree that we want a different basis of rating, but that is a big order and will take some time to effect. Meanwhile agriculture needs help immediately. I do not say that the Government are bringing in a Bill with no faults, but in the circumstances it is the best Bill they can bring in to relieve agriculture immediately.
This money is not a gift to agriculture; it is a gift to the rest of the ratepayers, whose burden agriculture has been bearing for many years. It is the rest of the
ratepayers that the Government are relieving to-day. They are simply saying, "We will take the unfair burden off agriculture, and rather than that the other ratepayers should bear it, we will take the money out of the Exchequer." Perhaps, fortunately, certain hon. Members opposite know very little about the conditions of agriculture. The talk about rents being raised 66 per cent. is utter humbug. There may be individual cases of that kind, but in the generality of cases rents have been raised sufficiently only to meet partly the increased cost of repairs, and in many cases they have not been raised at all up to now. There are old rents which have not been altered, and good landlords are not altering rents to their old tenants.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have followed this Bill through Committee and I wish to make one or two remarks before it leaves the House. I confess that the way the Bill has been discussed in Committee and on Report is a little ominous for the kind of legislation which we may see in future. You get a rather perfunctory discussion in Committee. You get a really important point, such as the question of the distribution of relief, whether it should be by a flat rate per acre, on which seven Members made their speeches, taking perhaps one hour, and the point is decided by 15 votes to six. That is excluded when we come back to the House. Other points which we considered were of vital importance are excluded. If that is the way in which Standing Orders—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is the third or fourth time that the hon. Member has made veiled criticisms of the Chair. I did not rise before, but I think it necessary to point out to him now that he must not do so.

Mr. ROBERTS: I must express my apologies to the Chair, but it seems to me that the discussion, in Standing Committee, at all events, is exceedingly unsatisfactory at the present time, and leaves very little opportunity for real points to be made against the Bill. After having suffered a good deal from the reflections of hon. Members opposite, may I for once ask them if they would give us credit for an elementary knowledge of the subject? We know that hon. Members opposite are great authorities and
experts who know their business. We do not dispute that, and we do not wish to be treated as in any way on an equality with them. But when they think they have an exclusive knowledge, and deny to us any knowledge of the elementary facts of the situation, one protests. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), for instance, in correcting some remarks which I made, gave some information which appeared to me singularly irrelevant, and then challenged a statement made by me about one particular branch of agriculture. I have got the latest figures issued by the Ministry giving exactly the percentage which I quoted, and all I can say is that, while the right hon. Gentleman no doubt is giving the average figure in his own sphere of experience, yet, on the average figures over the whole country, I was right and he was wrong. Apart from that personal statement I should like to make one statement about our general attitude towards the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), seeing a little party capital in it, I suppose, asked what was going to be the attitude of the Liberal party upon this Bill. I cannot speak for the Liberal party, but I think their attitude will be what it was in 1896. The party is divided now, as it was then. There was at that time a section of the Labour party who did not see eye to eye with the main body of the party and they supported the Bill of 1896 just as some support this Bill to-day. I admit and I have always admitted, that the farmers have a case for relief. There are various ways in which the Government might have dealt with that case and many suggestions were made. The case of the farmers was a general case; they had not a special or individual case, and their real claim lay in the fact that there are national services which are borne by local ratepayers' and local ratepayers have a claim for relief from the charge for these national services. Had the Government taken that method and left it open to the House to deal with the situation along those lines, I do not know that we could have objected, because the farmers and occupiers would have received, in those, circumstances, the same relief as that to which other local ratepayers would have been entitled—as for instance if the charges for education had
been taken off the local rates. There might, again, have been introduced an arrangement such as was suggested by Lord Ernle, allowing the farmers to set off against their rates some part of their expenditure on manures or fertilisers. Again there might have been a division of rates between the owners and occupiers, but that is ruled out as being beyond the scope of the Bill. There might have been other arrangements for dealing with the matter, but some were ruled out by the Financial Resolution and others we could not put forward and the Government fall back on the bad old stereotyped method, the unintelligent method of granting relief. I am content to take the description given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford. He was asked before a Royal Commission what he thought of the method of relief and he said:
I think it is a bad method, because the land best able to bear the burden gets the most relief and the land least able to bear the burden gets least relief. That is inseparable from that form of relief and that is one of the reasons, I suppose, why it was made only temporary.
He took a different line to-night. To-night he said that the relief goes to the man who has the heaviest burden, but that was not his view when he was requested to express his opinion before the Royal Commission, and I think his views before the Royal Commission are a good deal sounder than his views to-night. That is one of my real objections—that you have this old, bad system. The Ministry of Agriculture could not get out of its stereotyped and unintelligent rut. It had to do the thing in the way in which it had been done before. It could not bring a fresh mind to bear on the subject. It has left all the old objections entirely unrelieved, all the old grievances entirely untouched. It has refused any kind of Amendment. The most relief is given to the land that needs it least, and the least relief is given to the land that needs it most. Therefore, I think we are entitled to say that it is a bad method of giving relief. I do not quite agree with all that the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, because I do not think the effect of this Bill will be to increase rents. I do not think there is any doubt as to what the ultimate effect will be. The first advantage will go to the farmers in England, though some of it will go, of
course, to the landowners, but ultimately I do not suppose there is any doubt that the benefit goes to the landowners. I do not think that is really disputed by the authorities, and, in fact, the way in which it will operate is that it will be a prop to falling rents.
Rents rose after the War, and they went up, in many cases, 25 per cent. above pre-War level. That was an advance which was naturally asked for, and I do not wonder at landowners increasing their rents, but with the world fall in prices, it is quite obvious that these rents must come down, and when they come down, and in the process of coming down, is it not quite obvious what must happen? Here is a farmer rented at £100 a year, and he may get £10 out of this Bill in certain circumstances, but if the farmer goes round to his landlord and asks for an abatement—or perhaps he feels that he has got the 10 per cent. off the rates, and that, under the circumstances, he cannot ask for an abatement—but if he does, is not the obvious answer: "You have had the equivalent off your rate, and under the circumstances you cannot expect me to give you more"? Therefore, I think it will not raise rents, but it will be a prop to falling rents, and that is the economic effect which I think will be produced.
I will not go over the whole ground now—I know it is very hot—but I want to protest against the sophistry, that has been repeated more than once, that this is not a grant to the farmers, but a grant to the non-agricultural occupiers, and that the money goes into their hands. The argument is this, that the rural occupiers get off their rents. If nothing were done, the non-agricultural occupiers would have to make up the deficit, and as the Government comes down and puts the burden on the whole of the taxpayers of the country, the grant is given, not to the people whose rates have been reduced but to those who would have had to contribute if it had not been for the Exchequer grant. To represent that as a grant, not to the rural occupiers but to another body is, I think, pure sophistication.
There has been running throughout this Debate two lines of argument, and the Government stand first on one leg and then on the other. Sometimes it is the
pressing distress of the farmers, and the fact that if we do not give this relief at once agriculture will perish. Then, when one points out that that will not take place, the Government turn round, and say, "No, this is part of our ideal system of rating, which is going to come in." That argument really will not do. There, again, it does not bear it out. This is not a redistribution of local burdens. If it were a redistribution of local burdens, the Government, as I should have thought they would have done, would deal with the whole matter comprehensively, and meet the case, not merely of the farmers, but of all the ratepayers. The Government are in a terrible hurry about this. They say, "We cannot possibly do all this. There is no argument against it, but if we do it we should hold up this relief, which must be granted at once." The Government need not introduce an ideal system if this were merely an alteration of the rating system; and if it were a redistribution of the rating system and an introduction to a better and more ideal system, then clearly they would not single out the Scottish landowners for preferential treatment.
There are only two other points. In the first place, this is, of course, a dole to the agricultural interest. It is a contribution from the State. It clearly cannot save British agriculture. What does it mean? It works out at about 2s. per cultivable acre, which is perhaps one per cent. on the total agricultural product of the country. It works out at about £6 to each holder. No human being will say that that is going to save British agriculture. Many hon. Members have taken up an attitude of oven-handed generosity towards the farmers. They say, "They have had a bad time, let us give them something. Let us throw some public money about, rather heedless of where it comes from, or what its final effect will be. It will, at all events, encourage and put heart into the farmers for the immediate present; and it does not matter, it is only public money, and is only contributed by the taxpayers of the country. We may as well distribute it pretty indiscriminately, shutting our eyes to the fact that a good deal is going to those who do not want it, and that in a good number of cases it will go to people who have no claim whatever.
There are two great objections to that line. In the first place, I must confess that I am one—I do not know whether hon. Members will believe it—who has a very honest respect for the capacity of the British farmer. I also believe that British agriculture is not going to be saved by these occasional doles, but by the practical skill and management of the British farmer. We know what he has done in the past; we know he produced a greater product in his crops in wheat-growing times than any other country. He has been passed now by some other countries, but that was his achievement in those old days, and, after all, his practical experience has built up the best herds of cattle and of pedigree stock in the world. I believe his brains and his practical skill will enable him to adapt himself and to alter his methods, and that possibly the Government may be able, by research and elsewhere, to assist him. I do not think that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to assist him very much by the arable dairy farming which he is at present carrying on. So far as I can make out, the right hon. Gentleman, when he tries arable dairy farming, loses never less than £1,000 a year on each farm. Something will be done, but it will not be by a policy of doles; and I believe that British farming will save itself by its own self-help and capacity.
The other point is this: An hon. Member, speaking a little while ago, said he had made the discovery that the landlord was an unpopular character. I am afraid that is a fact. A little while ago I fought an election in a rural area. Under the surface I never saw a fiercer class war than that which raged in that particular part of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in the towns!"] And in the towns. A feeling has grown up that the landlord is a class of person who ought not to be permitted to exist. [Laughter.] It is no use laughing at that remark. I do not agree with the feeling in the least; but it is there, and it is no use ignoring it. Under these circumstances I think the landowners would have done better not to put themselves into an invidious and exceptional position, and to claim preferential treatment over other people. Any grievance they believe they have had better be remedied in a comprehensive scheme. No one who has watched what
is happening to the agrarious revolution that is going on now in Europe can quite easily see that some drastic changes may come in our own country. Even in a land like Denmark, with its system of peasant proprietorship to steady the situation, the best step to the agrarious revolution is a proposal under which the big landowners had to surrender to the State one-fifth of their property, on a very small and scanty compensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members say, "Hear, hear!" But there is a real danger. I recognise the services which have been rendered by the great landowners who have played their part in the improvement of agriculture. That, however, is not recognised by a large class, a large body, of the people at the present time. It is for that reason that I deplore that once more the Government have chosen to carry through a Measure that places the landowning class in a very invidious and false position.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: In a very few words I want to say something in favour of the wicked landlord. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that by reducing the rates on agricultural land the Government are benefiting the landlord, and that the advantages contained in this Bill will not be of use to the community which farms the land, but that the money will go direct to the pockets of the landlord. This, in my humble opinion, is a subtle half truth. I do not think any hon. Member will deny that by reducing rates and lightening the burdens, the capital value of land is bound to go up. But what I do deny is that the landlords throughout the country are going to raise their rents from the date this Bill becomes law.
11.0 P.M.
The agricultural industry to-day, as every hon. Member of this House knows, is in a parlous state, and no one knows that fact better than the landlords. The landlords, realising that fact, are not going to be so foolish as to reburden their estates before the industry is again on a flourishing foundation. Agriculture is like a tired horse; you must lighten its burden until it regains its strength. When it regains its strength you can then give it burdens which are equal to, but not more than what it can reasonably be asked to sustain. The landlord to-day is in exactly the same position as the tired
horse, and he is not going to reburden his estate after the Government have given him a helping hand.
I do not think hon. Members on the Socialist benches need have sleepless nights thinking that the landlords are going to break the agricultural industry, as the well-being of the tenant means the well-being of the landlord. The landlords, in my humble opinion, have been for many years the backbone of the agricultural industry in this country. The well-being of the landlords and the tenants means the same thing, and the landlords know that perfectly well. If the tenant is well off the landlord will be well off, and if the tenant is badly off the landlord will be badly off. The landlords are not going to cut off their noses to spite their faces. It has been said that the agricultural labourers do not want the rates on agriculture reduced, but that is not true, because last year a memorandum was prepared and submitted to the Government by the Central Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and the Agricultural Section of the Workers' Union, in which they say:
Upon the injustice inflicted on their industry by the present system of local taxation they are entirely at one. Realising that …. the effect of the present system is to withdraw capital which would otherwise be available for investment in agriculture, and reduce income which would otherwise be available to meet outgoings and maintain or increase wages, and thus seriously to prejudice the industry as a whole, they have made common, cause to express their urgent claims for the redress of an admitted and pressing grievance.
Hon. Members may accuse the landlords of cupidity, but they cannot accuse them of stupidity as well.

Mr. S. PATTINSON: I think hon. Members will agree that those engaged in agriculture are entitled to some consideration as regards rating. There has been confusion in my mind whether this is a grant or a dole. If I thought it was a dole I should vote against it. But I think it is a grant-in-aid of the rates. It has been needed for a very long time. Many public bodies have sent representatives up here claiming relief. I have taken two or three parties to different Government Departments to which they have pointed out the inequalities and injustices under which agriculture is labouring. It is only because I believe
that the Government are giving this grant in relief of rates for three years and that then they intend to do something to alter the basis of local taxation that I shall support it. I have been interested to hear some of the arguments for and against the Bill. I think they have been worn rather thin. I noticed that the hon. Members for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) and for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) both used the same quotation. If they had had strong arguments they would not have done that.
One argument has not been quite fully dealt with. We have heard a great deal about the occupiers of land near towns. There are in the City of Lincoln about 10,000 men out of work. In the Lincoln area are two rural councils, purely agricultural districts. The men receiving out-of-work relief in those two rural areas in the year 1922 drew about £700, but in the City of Lincoln the outgoing amounted to no less than £107,500, and these two rural councils have to bear their share of keeping the unemployed engineers in Lincoln. An hon. Member says, "Quite right"; but how have those rural areas benefited by the work of the engineers of Lincoln? Lincoln exports the whole of the machinery it manufactures to Russia and the East of Europe; it does not send any noticeable quantity into the two rural areas. Surely it is not the business of agriculturists to pay for the unemployed in large towns. In these two rural areas they are paying 4s. or 5s. in the £ for this purpose. They will get a distinct benefit under the Bill. One they would not have received if the benefit had been fixed at so much per acre right throughout the country. The time has long gone by when an inquiry into our whole rating system was due. If I am in the House in 1925 or 1926, when this Bill comes to an end, and if I find there is no attempt to remedy this injustice of local taxation, the House may depend on it I shall never vote for another Bill of this sort. I only vote for it now because I know, as chairman of the rates committee of the county council, that it is an urgent necessity that the farming community should receive some relief from the unjust burdens put on it during the last three or four years.

Sir ERNEST POLLOCK: The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) be-
gan his speech by telling us that the proceedings in Committee were exceedingly unsatisfactory. I certainly should not have used the word "exceedingly," although I could agree with him that they were unsatisfactory, and the point of view my Friends and I took why they were unsatisfactory was that the hon. Member for Derby occupied practically the whole time of the Committee. He spoke six times as much as anybody else, and used exactly the same arguments over and over again, and verbatim has reproduced much of the argument he used in Committee. He said he believes in the practical skill of the British farmer. So do I, but as the hon. Member told us in Committee that he himself was a farmer, I gathered that really means he believes in himself, and from that point of view I congratulate him, and I am very glad to think, whoever else has confidence in him, he has at least confidence in himself—a manly quality.
We are told over and over again that by some other method we might have done some good to agriculture by taking off the rates locally borne for education, lunacy and so on. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that if that had to be done, it would be a matter of deep consideration over a long period of time, and agriculture, if it is to benefit, needs to benefit immediately. It is easy to say that we are really not doing something in favour of agriculture, and to be able to go down to the hustings and say, "I am not opposed to agriculture or to the farmers, but a better method could have been chosen." Those speeches are really opposed to the agricultural interest. Of those Members of the Liberal party, it may be said with Lewis Carroll, it is always jam yesterday and jam to-morrow, but it is never jam to-day. That sort of speech is of a dilatory nature, and is not intended to give any help at all to those who need it, and is really intended for a purpose ulterior to the main objects of this Bill, and to enable Members to found an argument, not understood in the constituencies, but understood in this House, to be a direct opposition to anything like relief to agriculture. Hon. Members have used the old argument, from 1896 onwards, that the landlords are going to increase rents, or, as the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) put it, that it is a prop against
falling rents. Those observations were made in 1896, and have been repeated up and down the land, but every effort that has been made to try and find a single landlord who has raised a single rent has failed. After 27 years, up comes the old stuff, like a property from a side-show in a theatre, and we are introduced to these arguments again, but they have no foundation. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcatle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), wherever he hears of land or property, always sees red about rent and landlords. It is a warm day to-day, and I daresay he sees things in a brighter colour. The reason, however, for my intervention is to say that I support this Bill as one which is intended to give to the agricultural interest an overdue relief which is needed immediately, and to explain, so far as my words may reach, that those Members of the Liberal party who are pretending by some other method to offer some assistance to agriculture are really only endeavouring to confuse the issue, an issue on which they are definitely opposed to giving any relief to the greatest interest which this country has.

Mr. ACLAND: I should like to begin, my remarks with a reference to a subject which has not been touched upon yet in the Debate, namely, the question how, if at all, the passing of this Bill will affect the labourer. The Labour proposal in the Bill was that on farms where the labourer was paid less than 30s. a week no relief from rates should be given, but I do not see how that would help the labourer very much. The Government hope is that the relief given in rates will automatically percolate through and the labourer will get his share. I want to make a suggestion which is, I suppose, intermediate between these two suggestions. I will not ask my right hon. Friend to make any comment upon it tonight, but would ask him to consider it later. We hope there will be, by the passing of this Bill, and in other ways, some improvement in the general agricultural position in those very much distressed Eastern counties and in other districts where they are already paying 30s. a week, which is, of course, below the standard of a living wage in the case of a man with a family. I would like my right hon. Friend to consider, not the immediate re-introduction of compul-
sory wages boards, because I do not think that that is the most practical way in which to get a real improvement, but to consider whether he could not say, if and when he sees any little signs of improvement in the position of agriculture, that he expects the farmers to indicate to him from time to time—it may take a long time before things get appreciably better—by showing him their balance sheets and accounts through their branches of the Farmers' Union, that they are paying at any rate as good a wage as they can afford to pay, and that, on their position improving in this, and, one hopes, later, in other ways, he will expect a wage to be paid as good as the industry can afford; and that if he finds, by examination through his officers, that the sort of wage that they can afford is not being paid, he will have to come round to the position of considering the practicability of re-imposing wages boards.
One of the ways of preventing what I think we all in different degrees want to prevent, namely, the advantage of this Bill being swallowed up by the landowners, is to see that as much as possible of it is transferred as soon as possible to the workers in those counties where we all lament the fact that the present level of wages is below the living wage on which alone a man can maintain a family satisfactorily. It is only by seeing that the benefit to the industry shall, so far as is possible be shared between the farmers and the workers, that we can prevent it from being absorbed in other ways. I have been surprised, not at the amount of disagreement, but at the amount of general agreement that there has been with regard to many aspects of this Bill. We all agree that it is not a permanent solution, that it leaves unsettled the most difficult, and in many ways the most pressing, of the present difficulties with regard to rating. We all, probably, agree that unless and until it is possible for the State to get somewhat nearer to a transfer of the present very heavy burden of Imperial services on the taxpayer, we shall not get anywhere near a final solution. But the attitude I have had to concentrate on perhaps rather more than my hon. Friend with whom I slightly disagree is, is there or is there not a quite clear and undoubted injustice in the present
incidence of rating as between the occupier of agricultural land and other people of about the same type of means in our country districts. I have been trying to get facts and figures to answer that question. Rates ought to be paid presumably either on a man's ability to pay or on the benefit which he derives from the expenditure of the rates. The benefit a man derives is a personal thing. It is not measured by the amount of land he owns and if you are looking at the benefit a man derives you ought not to look at the amount of land he has to own in order to prosecute his livelihood but at himself personally, because it is not the land that gets the benefit from the expenditure on the roads, for instance. Most farmers would be only too thankful if the roads could be back in the condition they were in fifteen years ago. They would prefer not to have them brought to their present high state of efficiency for motor traffic. It is not the land that gets the benefit of expenditure on lunatics, the poor rate and so on. Those are personal things. It is not fair to call on the land as land to contribute if you are looking at the benefit derived. If it is derived from the person you must look at the person. When one looks at the person what does one find?
I heard a speech by Lord Fortescue at South Molton the other day. He was seeking a fair comparison between the rates paid by a farmer and the rates paid by other people of about the same means and he had stumbled on a case in point. It has been stated in debate that there are other people who pay an unfair amount of rates besides the farmer, and the publican has been cited. Whether that be so or not Lord Fortescue's comparison was between the publican and the farmer and he had found that in 20 free houses—rates are no criterion in a tied house—where the question of compensation for abolition of the licence had come up before the authority with which he was connected, the rents averaged £50 a year, assessable value averaged £42 a year and the tenants of the houses had been able to show that their average income was £250 a year. Then he proceeded to argue backwards. The Inland Revenue argument with regard to the farmer is that his income his equal to his rent, and, therefore, it is fair to argue that a farmer whose
income is £250 would be rented at £250. The man rented at £250 is probably assessed at about £200, of which £180 is on the land and £20 on the house, so that under the old Act of 1896 he is paying on £90 on his land and £20 on his house, or on £110 as compared with the £42 on which the publican pays, although they have the same reputed or presumed income. This Bill will have this effect, that instead of paying on £110 a year he will be paying on £45, on his land, instead of on £90, and on £20 on his house, or on a total of £65. That is considerably more than the £42 on which the publican pays, but, at any rate, £65 is nearer justice for the farmer than the £110 on which he was paying before. Therefore, it is on comparisons of that kind, and in the belief that it is not right to perpetuate what is clearly an injustice, that it seems to me right to support the Government in this effort.
I hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) murmuring something about landlords. He must murmur "landlords" in his sleep. I suppose he suggests that I ought to deal with that aspect of the matter, and I will. My hon. and gallant Friend, and it may be other persons, in discussing this matter forgets the great rapidity with which the landlord, in the old sense, is ceasing to be an element in these things. It is rather a pity. Other people may think it is a good thing. The rate at which the landlord in the old sense has been disappearing since the War is a very remarkable thing. In the county with which I have the honour to be connected it has been happening very fast, and is still happening. Therefore, in a very large number of cases, the question as to whether the relief given by this Bill passes to the landlord, ceases to be a factor. The land has passed into the hands of the cultivator, or into the hands of some relative of the cultivator, and there is no longer the sharp division in family and caste between the landowner and the cultivator, and in these cases the relief given by the Bill will go to the man whom the House wants it to go to, namely, the cultivator, and it will be a very practical help in agriculture, so far as money goes.
My hon. and gallant Friend may think it hypocritical if I do not say what I think of the Bill as a landowner myself. I confess, quite frankly, that I am much
tempted to vote for the Bill as a landlord. I can resist everything except temptation. There were two classes of landowners after the War; one sold out and the other hung on. Many of those who sold out had to sell out, and many who sold out sold because they were tempted by high prices. Many of those who hung on, hung on though they knew they could have got double, treble or quadruple if they had sold out. Many, like myself, who managed to hang on have not made ends meet since hanging on, and I have been living on that detested and terrible thing capital. That is so in my case, and many hon. Members opposite must be in the same position. I am not so good as some landlords who kept their rents exactly as before the war. I put my rents up 10 per cent., but my expenses went up 100 per cent. Those landlords who hung on did not in many cases do so because they could afford it. It seems to me that those landlords who did hang on, with regard to whom their tenants have not had to buy their land, as those under the worst owners have had to do, with results which many of them are beginning to find out, do not deserve so badly of the State after all.
But quite frankly I admit that the benefits under the present Bill must pass very largely to the landowners and away from the tenants. I do not think it possible to draft anything which would prevent, when any change of tenancy occurs, the benefit of this Bill passing largely to the landowner. To some extent I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend behind—that the benefit will pass to the landowner even during a sitting tenancy, because the tendency now under this Bill is for rents to come back again, and it is beyond human nature for a landowner not to argue with a tenant that if he has got considerable relief from the Government in rates he does not therefore need so much relief in rent. It would be hypocrisy for anybody to try to conceal that, and I do not think that anybody has tried to conceal it. Certainly in the case of new tenants no power on earth can prevent the tenant from offering the rent which he thinks he can afford, and the lower his outgoings in the form of rates and so on the more he can offer in the form of rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you say that at Tiverton?"] Cer-
tainly. I have never disguised the fact that I was going to support this Bill, partly because I was a landowner. I think that a great deal of the benefit will go immediately to the tenant and ultimately will pass to the landlord. I have been perfectly frank about it.

Mr. LANSBURY: Why should Poplar pay for that?

Mr. ACLAND: My hon. Friend will not accuse me of arguing that this is the worst difficulty which is to be found anywhere in the country. I am only saying that where you find a class of persons who are paying rates grossly in excess of other persons of similar means, and the Government does come forward to remedy the injustice, it is not incumbent on me to argue that they must remedy every injustice.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do you say that people whose rates are 24s. in the. £ ought to pay towards this relief?

Mr. ACLAND: I do not want to enter into an argument with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the taxes or rates of the people in Poplar will be raised by one fraction of a farthing by the granting of this relief. I shall support this Bill, because it will perhaps help the landord, though it leaves the general question entirely chaotic, and because it will give some relief, in my opinion, to the occupiers, with their great and I fear not decreasing difficulties in making their living from the land and producing the food from the land, and who have been unfairly treated in this matter of rating, and whom I think it is high time to relieve even though greater injustice may be left unrelieved elsewhere.

Mr. WRIGHT: I have listened to the discussion the whole of the day, and have been particularly interested in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Probably at no very distant date we shall be able to listen to him looking at his face instead of his back.

Mr. ACLAND: Hear, hear! When our side wins.

Mr. WRIGHT: One observation of the right hon. Gentleman struck me particularly. It was that wages were to be paid as far as possible; that is to say, the wages were always to be the last item.

Mr. ACLAND: I cannot allow that statement. That is a wholly wrong impression to give of my speech. I was asked whether I had said something in the Tiverton by-election. What I stated was that I thought wages ought to be the first charge on industry, and I indicated to the Government that they should see to it that any relief given should be transferred to the workman.

Mr. WRIGHT: I begin to wonder why I sit in this House at all. It is very seldom that I get into a Debate, and when I repeat exactly what has been, said this is the kind of statement that is made. Apart from what the right hon. Gentleman said, it stands as a true statement that the agricultural labourer is the last person to be considered in agriculture. We have heard a great deal about the landlord and the farmer, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not be unduly irritated if we refer to what we regard as the most important factor in agriculture from the human point of view. It is conceivable that we may have an agricultural system when we have no landlord. I hope the day will come when the landlord as landlord will disappear. An hon. Member opposite said that he wanted to say something in favour of the wicked landlord. I want to say something against the wicked landlord, because my ancestors and I have suffered, in common with hundreds of thousands of agricultural workers, from conditions of semi-starvation in what is one of the most important industries of the country. An industry which does not afford the essentials of a well-ordered life stands condemned. It can afford the landlord, with all his fox hunting—which costs £40,000,000 a year in this country—and the farmer, but the first claim on the industry should be the wages of the labourer, without whom there would be no agriculture. There has not been a word said on that subject to-day. The question is a very important one. We all want to see agriculture prosperous, but I do not believe in a system of subsidies or doles or grants as a favour to one section of the community at the expense of another. It is a very grave injustice to a large number of industrial areas that a Bill like this should be passed into law. I am speaking on behalf of a division where we have had many people during the last few years living under conditions
of semi-starvation. Any industry which does not give its workers a reasonable standard of life should be changed, on the basis of the elimination of all needless factors until men and women engaged in the work are in a position to live upon their labour. I do not believe this Measure will bring the relief which is suggested. I was interested to hear an hon. Member opposite argue that no relief would come if, for instance, we made certain fundamental changes as between local rates and national burdens. Not very long ago a predecessor of the Minister of Agriculture, Lord Ernle, in a letter to the "Times" wrote as follows:
It is improbable that the farmers can lighten the burden of their present local rates by merely transferring it to the shoulders of other ratepayers but substantial relief will be given, if as is suggested by the Labour party, the cost of such substantial services as education, lunacy and main roads, was met by increased grants from the National Exchequer. By this means rather than by favoured treatment they are most likely to obtain relief. The change should form an item in the national policy, to go with such measures as can be effectively taken to prevent any diversion of relief from the occupiers to the owners.
The hope for the recovery of the agricultural industry in this country—to which I have given a great deal of attention and in which I am deeply interested, not only from the point of view of the labourer but from the point of view of the nation as a whole—lies in the fact that what other nations have been able to do Britain can do equally well. It is generally conceded that as regards the land and the climate we are as fortunately situated as any other part of Europe. Denmark, after the struggle with Prussia in 1864, was very much reduced but Denmark has made an extraordinary recovery—largely by developing its agricultural resources on land which cannot be claimed to be superior to our own. Half a century ago, Denmark lost almost half its territory and was left with a heavy burden of debt. It had very little coal or other natural resources; it was a wind-swept country, yet since 1871 it has reduced its grass lands by half and doubled its stock and in the last 20 years while our agricultural returns remained stationary its crop yield increased by 24 per cent. One-third of the population is agricultural and accord-
ing to a well-known writer the Danish peasantry are the most enlightened in the world.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will not pursue that line. To review the whole of Europe in this way would be outside the limits of a Third Reading Debate on this Bill.

Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Member tell us from what he has been reading?

Mr. WRIGHT: I defer to your ruling, Sir, but am only following the lines upon which other hon. Members have proceeded. One hon. Member opposite frequently lectures hon. Members on these benches for their supposed lack of knowledge of the agricultural industry, and as he did so to-night, it seemed to me legitimate that I should follow the line which he pursued. An hon. Member has asked me what. I am reading. I have great pleasure in telling him. It is from a small pamphlet called "The Farmer's Problem," written by a farmer, and contributed to a paper quite recently. But I could, if necessary, quote from the highest authorities in the last few months. Apart from that entirely, I venture to say that the great hope of dealing with this problem is the study and pursuit of agriculture upon a scientific basis. If that were done, it would be possible to deal with the problem on the lines we are advocating. We feel this is a very grave injustice to a vast number of our people, and I for one shall certainly vote against the Third Reading.

Sir R. SANDERS: I am glad that the last speech has done something to bring the Debate back to the quietude we previously enjoyed, and away from the heat, which was rather unexpectedly engendered by the speech of my right hon. Friend, opposite. I think that speech really replied to the points raised in the course of the Debate, and I will not venture to go over that ground again. I think he put admirably the justification for relief of the rates on the ground, which I have ventured to urge two or three times in the course of discussion on this Bill, as the real ground for this Bill, namely, that the agriculturist was paying a great deal more than his fair share. A good deal has been said about what the landlords are going to gain by the Bill. I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite in believing that the
first person who is likely to score by the provisions of this Bill will be the agricultural labourer.

Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid I did not say that.

Sir R. SANDERS: Then I go one better than my right hon. Friend, and I say I think the agricultural labourer will be the first person who will gain by it, because he will get higher wages. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] Experience proved that when remission in rates was made last time. There was a little heat engendered in this Debate about landowners. I do not mind admitting there will be a distant and indirect advantage to the landowner. Any improvement that is made in the conditions of agriculture will undoubtedly give, in an indirect and distant manner, an advantage to the landlord, as it will to everyone engaged in the industry, and to make it a reason why you should not increase the prosperity of the industry that one of those engaged in it should possibly eventually get some advantage out of it seems to me the very worst logic, and the very worst system of legislation you could possibly devise.
The question, of course, was raised in a much more acute form about the Scottish landlords. Like the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), I do not profess to be up in Scottish rating law, but on the broad ground I am quite ready to say that I hold that if the Scottish landlord pays more than his share towards local taxation, it is quite fair that he should get his measure of relief. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said, "Why should the Poplar people pay toward any relief given to the agriculturist?" I do not want to have any heat or any excitement about that question, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to put the matter, quite gently and quietly, from the agriculturists' point of view—which is a point of view which has been raised to me by more than one agriculturist. In places like Poplar there are a great many men out of work. Very costly relief works are set up all over the country for the benefit of these men, and the agriculturist has to subscribe toward those relief works, although the number of agricultural labourers who are out of employment, and the number of unem-
ployed in the country districts, is very small indeed. Further, the taxpayers all round, including the agriculturists, subscribe a very large sum—I have not looked up the amount, but it is very large indeed—towards the unemployment insurance fund. The agriculturists have to contribute to that fund, just as much as anyone else, but they get no benefit from it whatsoever. The point of view that the agriculturist takes is, that the towns have a good deal more unemployment than they have. It may be quite right—there is not much grumbling about it. They are sorry for the men out of employment in the towns—and they do not grumble at having to contribute their share toward this unemployment insurance and this relief fund, but they say to the townsman, in return, "When we show that a perfectly unfair burden is placed on us, we ask you not to grumble much when you are asked to contribute a trifle toward relieving that unfairness."
I have tried to put the agriculturists' point of view to the hon. Gentleman as fairly and as plainly as I can. I do not know if I have convinced him, but I think it is a case to which a great many townspeople are ready to listen. We have evidence of that in the opposition to this Bill, which has really surprised me by its mildness, when I remember the opposition to the Bill of 1896—I was not in the House at the time, but I remember it—which was one of the fiercest oppositions ever offered to a Bill. It was then said, and it was believed to be proved, that enormous sums were going into the pockets of the landlords every year as a, result of the passage of that Bill. Yet, year after year, the Liberal party, which, in those days, had the honour of the adherence of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), in-

cluded this hated and much-abused Bill—this landlord's Bill—of 1896, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and, as a rule, without any protest being made against it.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Liberal party adjusted the balance by other measures of taxation.

Major BURNIE: I am not an agriculturist, but I should like to explain why I intend to vote against this Bill. My ancestors were Scottish fishermen who lived in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Dumfries. My grandfather lived in the time when the Battle of Waterloo was fought. The then landowner enclosed a large part of the parish, and that is the land on which we are going to give relief to the present landlord by reducing his rates. My uncle erected his nets in the waters off the coast and was cast into Edinburgh Gaol for three months. These were all poor men. My father—[laughter]—I am sorry to go into these personal and family details—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—my father built a cottage for his mother and paid £7 an acre for land which was worth 15s. As I understand this Bill, the present inhabitants of the cottages, who are poor fishermen, will have to pay this rate in full, while the landowner who is a millionaire is going to be relieved directly by the Clause in this Bill of three-eighths of his rates. On these counts, which I think form ample ground, I intend to go into the Lobby against this Bill.

Sir R. SANDERS: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 98.

Division No. 286.]
AYES.
[12 m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Blundell, F. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clayton, G. C.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Barnston, Major Harry
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cope, Major William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Button, H. S.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Cadogan, Major Edward
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Berry, Sir George
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Betterton, Henry B.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dawson, Sir Phillip


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Ellis, R. G.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Royce, William Stapleton


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lort-Williams, J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lumley, L. R.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Shepperson, E. W.


Garland, C. S.
Manville, Edward
Shipwright, Captain D.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, H. D. R.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Singleton, J. E.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mercer, Colonel H.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Gretton, Colonel John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nall, Major Joseph
Stanley, Lord


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Halstead, Major D.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Harrison, F. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Paget, T. G.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pease, William Edwin
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Basil E.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pielou, D. P.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Wells, S. R.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Privett, F. J.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Houfton, John Plowright
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hume, G. H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Remer, J. R.
Wise, Frederick


Hurd, Percy A.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wolmer, Viscount


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)



Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Oliver, George Harold


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Paling, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Phillipps, Vivian


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Attlee, C. R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Barnes, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richards, R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben


Bonwick, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Briant, Frank
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, S.


Brotherton, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. A.


Buckie, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Burgess, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Kirkwood, D.
Tout, W. J.


Chapple, W. A.
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, C. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Warne, G. H.


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Leach, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Linfield, F. C.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Collison, Levi
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
M'Entee, V. L.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McLaren, Andrew
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wintringham, Margaret


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Ede, James Chuter
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Wright, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Millar, J. D.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morel, E. D.



Falconer, J.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.


Gosling, Harry
O'Grady, Captain James

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 78.

Division No. 287.]
AYES.
[12.10 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Goff, Sir R. Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Peto, Basil E.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Pielou, D. P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gretton, Colonel John
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Privett, F. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Barnston, Major Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Remer, J. R.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Rentoul, G. S.


Berry, Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, F. C.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bonwick, A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brass, Captain W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Royce, William Stapleton


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Houfton, John Plowright
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Hume, G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Button, H. S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jephcott, A. R.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Singleton, J. E.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kelley, Major Sir Frederick A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Clarry, Reginald George
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Linfield, F. C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Collison, Levi
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cope, Major William
Lort-Williams, J.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Manville, Edward
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Nall, Major Joseph
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wintringham, Margaret


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wise, Frederick


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wolmer, Viscount


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Paget, T. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Garland, C. S.
Pease, William Edwin
the Rt. Hon. G. A. Gibbs.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Entwistle, Major C. F.


Ammon, Charles George
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Gosling, Harry


Barnes, A.
Charleton, H. C.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Briant, Frank
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, T. W.


Brotherton, J.
Duncan, C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Buckie, J.
Dunnico, H.
Hardie, George D.


Burgess, S.
Ede, James Chatter
Harris, Percy A.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Hayday, Arthur
Morel, E. D.
Snell, Harry


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hirst, G. H.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
O'Grady, Captain James
Tout, W. J.


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Oliver, George Harold
Trevelyan, C. P.


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Paling, W.
Warne, G. H.


Kirkwood, D.
Phillipps, Vivian
Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)


Lansbury, George
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lawson, John James
Potts, John S.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Leach, W.
Richards, R.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Lee, F.
Riley, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Wright, W.


M'Entee, V. L.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


McLaren, Andrew
Rose, Frank H.



Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Saklatvala, S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


March, S.
Salter, Dr. A.
Mr. Morgan Jones and Mr. Lunn.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir William Joynson Hicks): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a hardy annual, although I do not know whether there can be anything hardy in this weather. As the House knows, there is no possibility under the rules of Order to discuss any particular Act on the Second Reading of this Bill, but on the Committee stage it is open to any Member to move the expulsion of any particular Act from the Bill or the insertion of any act in the Schedule. The Committee stage will be taken early next week, and it will be open to anybody—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Early in the day?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As second Order, probably on Tuesday next.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: By the "second Order" does the Financial Secretary mean that the first Order will be one that will run till 11 o'clock? That would not be of much use to us. Will it be early in the afternoon?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury says he hopes to put it down as the second Order after the East India Loans Bill, which I do not think will take more than an hour, or, at the outside, an hour and a half. That will give full time, and I hope that, as everyone is anxious to get home, it will be convenient to the House—[Interruption].
Very well, in that case I am here as long as anyone likes, and shall be prepared to answer any case that may be made against the Bill. In order to show my desire to meet the convenience of the House, I beg formally to move the Second Reading.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I want to put one question which I think will clear the air. We are now discussing the Workmen's Compensation Bill in Committee upstairs, and are getting on very nicely, but I am afraid we shall not get through the Bill soon enough to get it passed during this part of the Session. We are trying to do so, but in case we are not successful I should like to ask whether the War Additions Act will be included with the expiring laws that are to be continued for the next 12 months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): It is not the case that the War Additions Act will continue after the 31st December next. I hope, however, that we shall get through the Committee stage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill after one, or at the most two, more sittings, and I understand from the Patronage Secretary that, if it can be agreed that we should get the Report and Third Reading in one day, we should be able to find time for the Bill before the Recess. There is a great deal to be said in favour of that, especially after we have had 12 or 13 days' thorough discussion in Committee. The Measure runs no risk by not being inserted in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because I understand a pledge has already been given that, if it is found impossible to get it through in one day and finish it before we go away for the holidays, it will be taken at the earliest possible moment on our return, which will give plenty of time before the 31st December for the new Measure to come into effect.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am somewhat disarmed by the appeal which has been made by the Financial Secretary, and to a lesser extent by the promise as to the hour at which the Bill will be taken. I had intended to move the rejection of the Second Reading and to divide the House, but, with the permission of my hon. Friend who was to have seconded the Amendment, I am not proposing to do that. I do want to point out, however, that last year a Select Committee was set up to inquire into this Bill, and into the scandal of always bringing it on late in the Session, usually late at night, and having what Sir Donald MacLean used to call a "middle-aged lark" by way of sitting up all night discussing important Measures affecting large classes of the community, and not really giving those Measures proper consideration. It was a perfectly respectable Committee. Major-General Seely was the Chairman, and it included no less than three Members of the present Government, namely, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the Paymaster-General, and the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. They sat for many days, and brought out a lucid and careful Report, which was signed by those three Members of the Government, and from which I will read one or two salient sentences.
They say that, owing to the fact that the Bill is invariably introduced at a very late period of the Session, there has been and can be practically very little discussion of it. Of course, we know that the Chief Whip is always taken by surprise at the rise of temperature in July, when the nights get warm and people want to go home, but he ought to foresee that and bring the Bill on earlier. The Committee went on to say that over a long series of years this system was both slovenly and dangerous, because Measures that were meant to be temporary tended to become permanent, and often delayed proper legislation by a partial solution of the problem involved. How can the Noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health sit there tranquil, complacent and satisfied, after having signed such a Report, when we again see this Bill brought on late in the Session and late at night? The Committee stated that they were of opinion that, as they had already suggested, the
process of continuing temporary Acts from year to year actually afforded, in some cases, an excuse for not dealing with the subject-matter in a comprehensive way. They suggested that there was no reason why the Bill should not be introduced much earlier in the Session, when proper Parliamentary time could be allotted for its discussion. I should like to know whether the Paymaster-General approached the Chief Whip and protested against this practice being repeated. It is a fact that the Committee did weed out the Schedule of the Bill a good deal, but too many important Measures still remain in it. I beg the Chief Whip to take this matter seriously. I understand he has read the Report of the Committee, and I think we ought to have some different system in regard to continuing these Acts, because otherwise great injustice and irregularity may arise. As we have been promised an early discussion on the Bill, I will reserve my remarks as to details until then.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to ask whether the time proposed to be given next week is, in the judgment of the Government, really sufficient, having regard to the fact that the Schedule runs to nearly five pages, every one of which contains Acts of great importance, and that very vital principles are involved. I ask that question especially because of our experience to-day. I notice that one of the Measures included in the Schedule deals with the subject we have been discussing, and upon which we have just been closured. Does the House really consider that part of a Parliamentary day is sufficient for the detailed discussion of all the Measures set out in the Schedule to a Bill which has been introduced practically without discussion on the Second Reading at 25 minutes past 12 at night?
Again, we have been discussing in Committee upstairs, for a somewhat protracted period, a Bill which has some reference to an Act included in the Schedule to this Bill. I should like to ask whether the fact that the Government includes again in the Schedule the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920, and the Sale of Food Order made under that Act, indicates that they have decided to give no Parliamentary time to the Bill, the Committee stage of which has just been concluded after 19 sittings? That is a point of substance to those of us who are interested in the matter. We
think it is a Bill which ought not to be given Parliamentary time.

Mr. SPEAKER: That can be raised on the Committee stage. We never deal with these details on Second Reading.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to. Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next (16th July).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.